Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make before Questions. The House is aware that one of my primary duties is to protect our long-established customs. There are four Questions on the Order Paper today which can lead only to what I call "shot-in-the-dark" questions. On 7th March I told the House that since Ministers are not able to transfer Questions directly related to their departmental work there is no reason for an hon. Member not placing on the Order Paper the Question that he really wants answered. Prime Minister's Questions are different, because the Prime Minister is able to transfer Questions.
I do not think that the ancient custom of our House with regard to Questions should be changed except by a conscious decision taken by the House as a whole. In any case, other hon. Members have a right to have notice of the real Question which is being addressed to the Minister.
To safeguard our long-established custom, I said that I would exercise my discretion with this type of Question. I want the House to know that today I shall call the four hon. Members concerned for one supplementary question and then move on, but after today I do not propose to call anyone to ask a supplementary question of a Minister, other than the Prime Minister, when it is a "shot-in-the dark" Question, until the House instructs me otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Montrose (Relief Road)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now prepare definite proposals for a relief road for Montrose; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): My right hon. Friend's decision to transfer the trunk road to the inland route means that this will be a matter for Tayside Regional Council. A line for the relief road has still to be fixed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that the reporter described the situation in Montrose as intolerable and recommended that the making of the order should be delayed for three years in order that an improvement to the relief road could be carried out? May we have an assurance, under the decision that the Secretary of State has taken, that when that improvement is carried out it will qualify for help from central Government funds, because it is something which is absolutely essential?

Mr. McElhone: I am aware of the difficulties in the Montrose area. My noble Friend who deals with roads on a day-to-day basis at the Scottish Office is prepared to increase capital expenditure guidelines for roads and transport to allow the regional council to construct an inner relief road. He will treat this expenditure as eligible for any assistance towards the cost of oil-related works which may be available at the time of construction.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of the widespread disappointment in South Angus with his decision to de-trunk the Dundee-Arbroath A92 road, which is badly in need of upgrading and improvement? If the Minister's proposals for the north-east oil route are to be carried out, will he give a categorical guarantee that the Forfar bypass will be given maximum priority and an early starting date?

Mr. McElhone: In Montrose there has to be a new line, which goes through a substantial amount of private property. I do not think that the hon. Member would be the first to say that we should ride roughshod over private property.


Compulsory purchase orders have to be obtained. I refer back to the question by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). As far as I know, my noble Friend is prepared to consider a meeting with the Tayside Regional Council on this matter.

Mr. Fairgrieve: In the light of this decision and because of the frustration about this road and the importance to the United Kingdom economy of the Aberdeen oil area, will the Minister consider making the road from Perth to Aberdeen, via Forfar, a dual carriageway?

Mr. McElhone: I shall convey that view to my noble Friend who deals with this matter.

Forth Estuary (Oil Exploration)

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the impact on the fishing industry of exploration for oil inside the estuary of the Firth of Forth.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The impact on the fishing industry of oil and gas exploration in United Kingdom waters, including the Forth estuary, is carefully considered by the Government as and when such developments are proposed. Apart from seismic surveys on which local fishermen were consulted, there has not been any oil exploration in the Forth estuary.

Sir J. Gilmour: As it would appear that the seismic survey is likely to lead to further drilling for oil, and since the fishermen already have to contend with the dumping of sludge and ammunition and the possibility of a pipeline across the estuary, does the Minister agree that it will be pretty tough going in the Forth estuary?

Mr. Brown: I do not agree. There has been an excellent relationship between the authorities—the Gas Corporation, the Coal Board and the oil companies—and the Firth of Forth fishermen, who are extremely voluble in conveying their comments and protests to the hon. Member. I do not anticipate any difficulty. There was a seismic survey, but that fact does not enable me to say whether there is oil under the Firth of Forth.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that there have been many complaints from fishermen about debris resulting from oil exploration and other oil activities in the North Sea? Have the Government been able to do any more about this? Has notification been improved? Has the Minister any hopes of a general insurance scheme that will cover damage from this source?

Mr. Brown: In 1974 the Government set up the Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group, which provides a forum for discussion of the more general issues between the oil companies concerned, the fishermen and any other interested parties. This issue gives rise to a real problem, and we constantly remind the oil companies of their obligations not to dump debris in places where it could cause difficulties.

Mr. Watt: Will the Minister ensure that equipment used by the companies in exploring for oil or exploiting oil resources is clearly marked, so that it can be readily identified by any fisherman who happens to pick it up in his boat's propeller?

Mr. Brown: It is tempting for oil companies and anyone else to dump things over the side and hope that they do not cause damage. It is equally tempting for fishermen whose nets are damaged to put the blame on the oil companies. This is a problem, but I am satisfied that a degree of understanding and co-operation exists.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister consider this question more seriously than he appeared to in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour)? The problem causes genuine concern. Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend enjoys the confidence of the fishing community far more than the Minister does, especially after the Minister's scandalous speech at Peterhead, describing the 50-mile limit issue as pure gimmickry?

Mr. Brown: The last point in the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise on this Question. I am treating the subject seriously. It is one upon which hon. Members make representations, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has no complaint about the way in which I treat his complaints or suggestions to me.

Moss/Morran (Petrochemical Project)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the Moss/Morran project since he announced his decision on the report of the public inquiry, giving provisional support to the planning application.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in the last three months against the projected petrochemical complex at Moss Morran, near Cowdenbeath, and what replies he has made.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I have received over 100 letters in the last three months containing representations against the proposed petrochemical complex at Moss Morran. Of these, six have been received since my letter of 29th March, which indicated on a provisional basis the decision that I am minded to issue. All representations have been acknowledged only, since I have still to reach my final decision on the planning applications concerned.

Mr. Gourlay: In spite of those objections, the vast majority of people in Fife welcome my right hon. Friend's provisional support for the project at Moss Morran. Once the issue of the radio mast has been settled and my right hon. Friend decides to give his final approval for this project, will he do everything possible to ensure that the oil companies utilise the site to the full, thus ensuring that the maximum number of jobs are made available to the area?

Mr. Milan: On the latter point, I refer my hon. Friend to what is said in the provisional note that I sent out. He will appreciate that it is difficult for me to say anything beyond that, because I have still to reach a final decision on this application and I am still receiving representations—at least the time is still open for them—about radio transmissions. I cannot give a final decision until I have considered those representations.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the three Labour-controlled authorities—the Fife Regional Council and the Dumfermline and Kirk-

caldy districts—are most anxious that a speedy decision is reached on this matter? What is the attitude of the Forth Ports Authority and of the Health and Safety Commission to the matter?

Mr. Millan: I cannot add to what was said in the report of the inquiry, which has been made available to the parties concerned. I assure my hon. Friend that when I have considered these further representations on radio transmissions there will be no undue delay in my reaching a final decision.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What are the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's decisions so far in relation to the pipeline from Aberdeenshire to Fife, which will service the refinery, in view of the strong local objections to it? When will the Health and Safety Executive report be available on this matter? There is great concern about the safety of the pipeline.

Mr. Millan: That is a separate matter. Pipeline authorisation is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. It is not possible for me to say much about it. I am, however, aware of the hon. Gentleman's views. I have had representations, for example, from the NFU and I have offered it a meeting with my officials to discuss some of the problems of laying pipelines across agricultural land.

Mr. Reid: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall representations being made from the petrochemical industry about the shortage of instrument mechanics in the Forth Valley, and potentially at Moss Morran? Does the Secretary of State realise how serious the situation is? What is he doing to increase training facilities, and when does he expect the report of the Manpower Services Commission on the subject to be published?

Mr. Millan: If the decision were to be that this project should go ahead, matters of that sort would be relevant. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report, he will see that some of these questions of labour supply are dealt with extensively.

Mr. Lambie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his good decision to give the go-ahead for the petrochemical developments at Moss Morran. Will he


reconsider, therefore, his bad decision to stop such development at Hunterston? Will he give the go-ahead for petrochemical developments in the West of Scotland, which has the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Millan: I am not aware that there are any petrochemical developments currently before me relating to the West of Scotland. If there were, I should no doubt consider them.

Edinburgh

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Edinburgh.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend is always happy to visit Edinburgh, as he does frequently, and he will be there again on Friday.

Mr. Doig: Will my right hon. Friend visit the hydro-electric board offices and look at its accounts, since it has substantially increased its charges in each of the last three years? Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are having great difficulty in paying these high accounts, and in some cases have had to cut off their heating systems?

Mr. MacKenzie: When next my right hon. Friend goes to Edinburgh, it is highly improbable that he will be able to visit the hydro-electric board's offices, for the good and simple reason that, subject to certain safeguards, he has no power to intervene in what is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the board.
The increased charges are in line with increases generally over the years. The charges now being made by both boards in Scotland are among the lowest in the United Kingdom.

St. Enoch's, Glasgow

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the St. Enoch's area of Glasgow.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the St. Enoch Station area.

Mr. Viggers: As and when the Secretary of State visits the St. Enoch's area, will he explain to the people there that the move of a computer-based package

covering the pay and records of the Armed Forces will not take place, and that he knows that it will not, because it will cost £200 million, it will destroy the efficient record keeping of the Armed Fores, and the concentration of all this in one area will pose a grave threat to national security?

Mr. MacKenzie: I do not know anything of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Government have yet to make up the package for dispersal to St. Enoch's Station area. It is still a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. We on the Government side of the House have been long committed to dispersal to Glasgow and to the West of Scotland. We have repeated that pledge time and again, and I repeat it once again this afternoon.

Rating Revaluation

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from ratepayers in Kyle and Carrick and Cunninghame districts protesting about the effect of the revaluation.

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the representations he has received to date regarding the current revaluation in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I have received a total of 951 representations regarding the current revaluation in Scotland. These include a further 885 from Kyle and Carrick district and a further four from Cunninghame district since my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) on 15th March.

Mr. Lambie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these figures—I have many more letters to send on to him—show great anger among the ratepayers, especially among the ratepayers of the town of Troon? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that although, in valuing property, the assessor has to consider certain principles common to all properties within all the areas of Scotland, these figures show that there has been discrimination against the ratepayers of the Kyle and Carrick and Cunninghame districts? Will my right hon. Friend now agree to reconsider his previous decision and allow an inquiry into this discrimination, or, if it is not possible, to refer the


whole matter back to COSLA for its consideration and advice?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend and others have made the charge of discrimination before. I can give only the answer that I gave before, that there are appeal procedures available. I have advised ratepayers who are aggrieved with the valuations to challenge them in their local valuation appeals committees. That is where the matter must be tested. If, the appeals having been made there, there were any evidence of discrimination, I should be willing to look at the matter further. However, the ratepayers—I say this, I hope, without offence and without complaint—would be better directing their appeals to the local valuation appeals committee than writing to me, because I am not able to deal with their appeals. They must be dealt with in these local appeals committees.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that where whole areas are being discriminated against it is difficult to appeal? As far as I can make out, it is not possible to appeal in any meaningful sense. Bearing that in mind, and in view of what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said and also that Argyll is second only to one district in Ayrshire in the way in which it has been hit, is it not time that the Secretary of State acted to help people of all income classes in these areas to prevent them from being subjected to this absolute imposition?

Mr. Millan: I reject the proposition that there has been discrimination. If it can be proved that there has been discrimination, I shall look at the matter again, but no evidence has been adduced so far for that proposition. Inevitably when there is a revaluation some areas come off better than others. If there were no relative changes in valuation, either between areas or between individual ratepayers, there would not be any purpose in having a revaluation. I repeat—I said the same thing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency when I was there the other day—that people who are aggrieved with valuations must go through the normal local appeals procedure. I advise them strongly to do that.

Mr. William Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received a flood

of protests from the town of Troon—many of which I received via Londonderry? Is he further aware that I have in interest to declare? I am a victim as a resident of Kyle and Carrick. Bearing in mind that there is a very general feeling of discrimination, and appreciating that my right hon. Friend cannot deal with the question of appeals—his advice is right on that matter—does he think that it would be worth while sending this matter for consideration by the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council?

Mr. Millan: I shall certainly consider that suggestion. I do not think that at the moment I have a matter which I could appropriately refer to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council. If I had any evidence of irregularity or genuine discrimination, I would consider that matter. It may be that it would then be appropriate to put the matter to the council. I do not think that it would be appropriate now, but I shall consider what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Grimond: What steps can the Secretary of State take about the position in Orkney, where a very steep increase in rates is due not for services provided for the local people but for services provided for the oil industry? Does he not think that it is time that we had another look at the Layfield Report?

Mr. Millan: That is a different question. Valuations have increased in Orkney more than elsewhere. But the valuations in Orkney were written very low compared with those in the rest of Scotland before the latest revaluation. Therefore, one has to take that into account also. The valuation principles are the same everywhere in Scotland. It is not particularly surprising, in view of the increased level of economic activity in Orkney in recent years in relation to oil, that the valuation should have increased disproportionately there.

Mr. Younger: Has the Secretary of State received a document from Kyle and Carrick District Council which demonstrates perfectly clearly that apart from individual increases there is a general increase in valuation which is much greater than that in other parts of Strathclyde? This has two effects. First, many individuals feel greatly aggrieved when they have to pay a 30 per cent. to 40


per cent. increase in rates at a time when wage increases are pegged to 10 per cent. Secondly, commercial interests are quite clear that this can result only in increased unemployment.

Mr. Millan: I am aware that the valuations in the area of Kyle and Carrick have increased more than they have elsewhere. That applies to Ayrshire as a whole. That does not mean to say that the new valuations are too high. It could equally follow that the old valuations were too low.

The Borders

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to The Borders.

Mr. Millan: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Steel: The Secretary of State will be aware from his previous visits to The Borders that there is great anxiety that the programme for the building of the new hospital should keep pace with the target. Is he able to tell us whether that will be so, when he expects the project to go to tendering, and when he expects building to start?

Mr. Millan: I can give the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks on this matter. The tender date to which we have been planning will be met. There are a number of internal planning procedures in the hospital service which will have to be gone through. There was a little delay at the beginning, but we are confident that the time will be made up and that we shall go to tender on the date planned, though I would not like to quote the exact date.

Hampden Park

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he accepts the most recent plan for the redevelopment of Hampden Park; what grant he will authorise; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McElhone: I have now discussed with the bodies concerned the proposal by Strathclyde Regional Council for an £8 million development at Hampden. The matter of Government grant is being considered urgently.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that in this year of great success for Scottish football, with Scotland reaching the World Cup finals, he alone, of all those concerned, seems unable to make his mind up about the future of Hampden Park? Will he make a decision to proceed before the World Cup finals, because it would be a great boost to Scottish football and an encouragement to other teams?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Member has this genial form of hypocrisy. Considering that he held the office that I held for some time, and that he was a Minister responsible for sport and has visited Hampden on many occasions, he was aware of the state of Hampden for many years and did nothing about it. I met the various parties concerned on Monday. It was only last Monday that we found out about the details of the £8 million plan. The architects at the Scottish Office are discussing the plan in detail with the architects at Queen's Park, and my right hon. Friend hopes to come to a decision as soon as reasonably possible.

Mr. Dempsey: May I once more ask my hon. Friend whether he will insist, with the authorities concerned, that there will be no deal whatsoever unless the improved stadium can accommodate at least 100,000 spectators, in view of the unbelievable scramble for tickets for big games at Hampden?

Mr. McElhone: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is lucky when the allocation is made. This point was raised at the meeting, and there were two options. One was to have a stadium that could accommodate 98,000 spectators. The other was to have all seating, with 65,000 spectators. That has not been finally decided, but I shall convey the point expressed by my hon. Friend to the authorities concerned.

Mr. Crawford: Does the Minister agree that any improvement in Hampden Park—with which the SNP is in total agreement—would incur more public expenditure? Does he further agree that the Conservatives are just a little more hypocritical, in that they are in favour of public expenditure cuts in general but against them in particular?

Mr. McElhone: I think that the body most in need of improvement is the SNP. The one thing that is certain is that SNP Members will have plenty of time to study the progress at Hampden Park after the next General Election. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however, that we have had from the Conservative Party claims for £20 million for the super-stadium, or the maxi-plan. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is shaking his head. It is not generally known that he brought along the Queen's Park directors to ask for £20 million to be spent on Hampden Park, and he is very lucky that I did not tell the Press.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that there was, indeed, a full report of the meeting that took place? Will he ensure—and will he give me an assurance on the matter, as the Member of Parliament for the area—that, in any plan coming forward for Hampden Park, full account will be taken of the interests of the local residents, who have to adopt what are virtually siege conditions when we have a major game? Will the Minister also ensure that any new plan will make full provision for access to and from the game, and for increased toilet facilities?
Will the Minister also accept that the comments that he made about my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) were totally unjustified, as he well knows if he has read all the papers?

Mr. McElhone: The points relating to toilets and the other matters were certainly conveyed to the appropriate bodies. I am also concerned—I raised this matter personally—that any estimate of accommodation for a new Hampden should take account of the youngster who goes along with the parent—because, after all, the young people are the seed corn of tomorrow's football support. If the cost of a ticket at Hampden, be it for a seat or otherwise, is excessive, one deprives the youngster of the chance of going to the match. However, these points and the points that I have made will be considered by myself, on behalf of the Scottish Office, and certainly by the various authorities involved in the new stadium.

Mr. Gourlay: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the World Cup competition was held in England a considerable amount of Government money was spent

on improving some stadiums in England? Therefore, will he give us today a statement in principle that if the football authorities in Scotland would make a contribution towards improving Hampden, the Government would make a major contribution as well?

Mr. McElhone: I think that it is beyond doubt that my right hon. Friend is sympathetic and, indeed, fully supports, as I do, the concept of a proper football stadium at Hampden Park. I cannot speak with any great knowledge about the contribution made by Government in 1966 but, as I understand it, for Wembley it was rather minimal in terms of financial support.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave a good run on that Question. The House will forgive me for commenting that I do not know what would have happened if Scotland had won the Grand Slam.

Legal Aid

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish an incomes test for applicants for legal aid in criminal cases; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): My right hon. Friend has no plan to do so. The difficulties of devising any such test for our system of criminal legal aid are discussed in the 1960 Guthrie Report on criminal legal aid.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the present provisions a salaried official can have all his legal expenses paid, even after conviction in the High Court, while he is earning a salary of £300 a week, yet one of my constituents earning £30 a week had to pay the court expenses arising from an action concerning a breakdown in his marriage? In view of the fact that we are pledged to eliminate such gross social inequalities, are we not, in this case, perpetuating one rather than terminating it?

Mr. Ewing: I would not pretend to my hon. Friend that there are not some difficulties in the present legal aid system, and there appears to be some injustice when someone who is very wealthy and


is earning a substantial amount of money can have legal aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself are very well aware of the difficulties that exist in the present legal aid system, and the seeming inequalities, but the complexities of sorting that out ought not to be underestimated. Nevertheless, we take account of what my hon. Friend has just said.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the Minister aware that in contrast with criminal legal aid, inflation has so restricted entitlement to civil legal aid over the last five years that legal aid in civil cases has in reality become the Cinderella of the welfare services? Does the Minister recognise this problem?

Mr. Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Member recognises the difference in granting aid in civil cases, as distinct from criminal cases. My view is that there is a lot to be said for the way in which we consider applications for legal aid in civil cases. I shall note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that he or I should give the impression that the obtaining of legal aid in civil cases has become more difficult. It has not. It is anything but that.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister take on board the fact that if the sheriffs were, for instance, given discretion to impose a contribution by an accused person towards the expenses of his defence, it might enable the eligibility range in the incomes test, as applied to such cases, to be extended and, therefore, more people to be given a chance of some help in these matters, which are of very great importance to them?

Mr. Ewing: The variety of questions that we have had on this subject indicates the difficulty of devising a test of means. That is the point that I was seeking to highlight when answering my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). But all the points that have been made will certainly be considered—not now, but certainly at a later date.

Mr. Fairbairn: I wonder whether the Minister will consider the fact that the civil legal aid system results in a person who has made savings from his income and, therefore, may have very modest capital being punished as compared with

someone who has spent his income. Will the Minister also consider the new Act of Adjournal, which in summary cases forbids the solicitor to make a plea of guilty or not guilty because it is assumed that the solicitor does not put forward, for legal aid reasons, the plea that the client would genuinely wish to be put forward?

Mr. Ewing: I shall certainly consider the hon, and learned Gentleman's second point. But the first point, about modest means, is precisely the point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. There is a difference between modest means and wealth. It is getting the balance right that is the difficulty in devising a test of means.

Primary Schools

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage of primary schools in Scotland which are using buildings constructed before the First World War.

Mr. McElhone: On the basis of information obtained from local authorities last year, 47 per cent. of primary schools have pre-1918 main buildings.

Mr. Canavan: Is it not absolutely intolerable that almost half of the primary schools in Scotland fall into this category, including schools in places such as Dunipace and Kilsyth, which are over 100 years old? In view of the Chancellor's announcement last October, of £400 million for the construction industry, plus the £40 million for education announced in last week's Budget, will the Government use some of this money to replace these antiquated Victorian buildings? This would improve the quality of education for the children, the working conditions for the teachers and the employment prospects of workers in the construction industry.

Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend would not expect the present Labour Government, in four years, to cure all the ills of educational buildings going back over half a century. I think that he would accept that whereas there was no specific provision for further school improvements and replacements last year, starting this year we are allocating £4·1 million. I should also say that work under


construction for education at the end of 1977 totalled £22·6 million for primary schools, that the number of primary schools completed at the end of 1977 was 36, and that 29 primary schools had major alterations or extensions. Something is being done, but I am not complacent about the problems that my hon. Friend has explained this afternoon.

Mr. David Steel: How much of the £40 million extra for education which the Chancellor announced in the Budget will be coming to Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: I make two points on that question. Scotland's share of this sum is to cover a higher than expected level of capital expenditure on committed work and projects to provide extra places. The sum is about £3 million.

Mrs. Bain: In the context of the £40 million for education announced last week by the Chancellor, does the Minister agree with the statement made by John Pollock, of the EIS, that this is a drop in the bucket compared with the cut-backs over the past several years? Over and beyond the primary school programme that has just been announced, will the Minister look very carefully at the question of nursery education, which is desperately needed in West-Central Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Lady must accept that since the Second World War both Governments have provided more school places than there are children in school. It must also be accepted that there are sharply declining rolls all over Scotland, posing grave problems for local authorities. A consultative document has gone out from my right hon. Friend to local authorities so that we may discuss the problem of spare accommodation, which is rapidly becoming available in schools all over the country.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the Minister agree that the decline in the birth rate is the biggest single problem facing education authorities in Scotland today? May we have his assurance that this will not lead to the wholesale closure of primary schools, particularly in rural areas?

Mr. McElhone: The complaint from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is anxious to see the closure of schools with very small roles, is that

I refused to close a school in the Tayside area because I felt that it had a purpose for the local community. That is an argument that I am having with the convention. But I realise its difficulties in trying to staff schools with very small rolls—often antiquated schools in rural areas.

Unemployment

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent consultations he has had with the Scottish Development Agency concerning the high level of unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I frequently have consultations with the Scottish Development Agency on relevant aspects of Scottish economic development, including questions of employment.

Mr. Younger: Has the Minister of State seen the trenchant criticisms published yesterday by the Comptroller and Auditor General about the Agency's activities? Bearing in mind that in a number of cases—notably Scofisco—it has destroyed more jobs than it has created, will he now agree to our proposal to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to make a full investigation into its work, to enable it to do a better job in reducing the intolerable levels of unemployment created by this Government?

Mr. MacKenzie: I read this morning what the Comptroller and Auditor General had to say. The sentence that I best remember is the one in which he said that he was now satisfied with the monitoring of the Agency's finances.
In regard to Scofisco, with which we dealt at some length last time, I have never heard such rubbish, even from the Opposition Benches. In its environmental, factory and industrial work, the Agency does a great deal in providing jobs for the people of Scotland, especially in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency of Ayr, where, on a 30-acre site, it has 900 jobs for Digital and 200 jobs for Prestwick Circuits.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister of State aware that most people in Scotland regard the Agency as a most useful weapon for economic development? But does he not agree that it would be even more effective if the Government reconsidered their decision not to establish a Scottish oil


development fund? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that oil company directors and Treasury officials do not live in areas of multiple deprivation, but that that is the fate of at least one in 10 children in the West of Scotland? Are not the Scottish people entitled to their cut of the oil profit as well?

Mr. MacKenzie: The matter of oil revenue is quite another question. We all recognise that much of the money we have received from the North Sea over the years has gone to the work of the Agency. It now has a good budget, which is now doing a great deal of useful work in Scotland.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is the Minister aware of the great difficulties that arise when the Agency subsidises a profitable firm and it thereby comes into commercial conflict with a neighbouring firm, which results in the loss of jobs somewhere and not in the retention of employment? This is a very serious aspect, which has happened on more than one occasion in recent months in the West of Scotland.

Mr. MacKenzie: For a start, I cannot think where it has happened recently. Secondly, it is well recognised that the whole purpose of setting up the Agency was for it to have an entrepreneurial role. That is precisely why it is an Agency and not just a department of the Government's activity. In any event, the guidelines that are laid down, which I am sure the right hon. Lady has studied, oblige the SDA to operate on normal commercial lines.

Mr. Henderson: Why do the Government persistently set their face against a Scottish oil fund, which has been called for by the STUC, the Scottish Council and many other responsible bodies of opinion in Scotland? Why are the Government taking up this stance?

Mr. MacKenzie: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about the White Paper, we shall be very happy to answer it, but the matter does not arise on a Question about the Scottish Development Agency.

Dr. Bray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Agency should be encouraged to take a greater initiative than it is taking, and that if it does not occasionally have a failure it is not doing its job properly?

Mr. MacKenzie: The Agency has invested or lent money to the extent of about £17 million. Out of about 30 companies in which it has made investments there have been only three failures. What must worry anyone who is genuinely anxious about the Agency's work is that while it is constantly being sniped at, as it is, about the kind of investments it makes we shall never get any progress at all.

Later—

Mr. Younger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have so often told us, you have no responsibility for the answers that Ministers give. But can you help us with regard to the misrepresentation of reports made to this House? A few minutes ago the Minister of State indicated that the Comptroller and Auditor General had expressed the opinion that he was now satisfied with the procedures of the Scottish Development Agency. I have here the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on that subject and I find that there is no such statement, or anything like it, in that report. Can you protect the House against such misrepresentations?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I deprecate the use of points of order to answer other statements that have been made. Other opportunities must be sought—not points of order.

Paper-making Industry

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to alleviate some of the difficulties currently facing the paper-making industry in West Aberdeenshire.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The Paper and Board Sector Working Party has, in its latest report, referred to difficulties which companies in the Aberdeen area have experienced in recruiting and holding labour in competition with the oil-related industries. I shall be pursuing this matter through my own Department and the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Minister appreciate that, apart from the problem of the wages being paid to incoming oil-related industries, which he mentioned in his reply, the industry has been doubly hit by the reduction of the Aberdeen travel-to-work area to a lower grade? Will he


consider restoring that status or taking other measures?

Mr. MacKenzie: I understand the difficulties of the paper-making companies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He may recall that I lost two paper mills in my own area in the early 1970s, so I am conscious of the problem. I can assure him that the Government will do everything they can to help. Although companies in the area are no longer eligible for regional development grant, they can still receive selective financial assistance under the Industry Act. My officials will be only too happy to discuss the question with any company. One company in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has already had assistance in this way, and we are in discussion with one or two others about this matter.

Mr. Watt: Will the Minister now admit that the removal of development area status from Aberdeen has been an absolute disaster, and that many companies, such as paper-making companies and textile companies, are suffering permanent damage? Where there definitely is a case for removing oil-related industries from eligibility for grants, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the grants should be allocated or withdrawn on an industry basis and not on an area basis?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am not prepared to accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In the nature of things, regional policy means that after it has been in operation for some time some areas must be upgraded and some downgraded. We all recognise that there has been success in the North-East of Scotland—something that I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would appreciate. There are still many benefits to the North-East in remaining an intermediate area. It can still benefit from selective financial assistance under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act.

Land Tenure

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions further to reform the law on land tenure.

Mr. Harry Ewing: It remains the Government's intention to make further progress with reform of the law on land

tenure, but I cannot at present be specific about the timing of any legislation.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Under-Secretary accept that there is considerable concern that proper legislation has not come forward, not least in my constituency, where tenants at will had been hoping that they would be able to get a valid title? That would have enabled them to get mortgages for their houses, which they cannot obtain at present. Is it for technical reasons that this legislation is being held up, or is it for some other reason, which the hon. Gentleman can now explain to us?

Mr. Ewing: It is our hope to proceed to a system of registration of title to land. With regard to the aspect that the hon. Gentleman raises, that of tenants at will, we certainly hope to ensure that reform of this particular tenure is included in the general land tenure proposals. But I must be honest with the House and say that during this Session there has been pressure on parliamentary time, which I am sure the Scottish National Party has not been unappreciative of, and which we are working under at present.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend take steps to deal with some of the abuses of land tenure, in view of recent reports that the Tory-controlled Grampian Regional Authority has been giving several acres of land rent-free over the past seven years to one of its rich farming friends, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt)?

Mr. Ewing: I had noticed that story in the Press. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares with me the wish that we should not be unkind to the hon. Gentleman. I have a feeling that the regional council has been looking for the hon. Gentleman since October 1974 to send him the account, and that it will find him much more easily after the next election.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about legislation on the registration of land. Will he acknowledge that in the long term this could lower the level of costs of transfer of houses and of house purchase, and therefore would be very much welcomed in encouraging home ownership in Scotland? Therefore, can he give us a more specific assurance about the introduction of this legislation?

Mr. Ewing: I could not be more specific than I have already been. This Parliament has about 18 months to run. All I can say is that if we find time between now and November 1979, the possibility is that we would introduce the legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICAN IMMIGRATION ORGANISATION (PTY) LTD.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate, further to his reply of 15th March, whether he will now make a statement about the inquiries into the activities of the South African Immigration Organisation (Pty) Limited of 104 West George Street, Glasgow.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Inquiries into this matter are still proceeding.

Mr. Canavan: Why is there such a long delay in dealing with this case? Is it not absolutely clear from the ministerial reply that I have had from the Department of Employment and which I have forwarded to my right hon. and learned Friend that these supporters of apartheid are not licensed under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and are therefore breaking the law and should be prosecuted for breaking the law?

The Lord Advocate: As my hon. Friend is well aware, the vital matter is whether they require a licence. This requires certain lines of inquiry, not only in this country but in South Africa, and necessarily these are taking a little time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL CLAIMS LEGISLATION

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the progress made in dealing with small claims legislation.

The Lord Advocate: The new summary cause procedure based on recommendations of the Grant Committee on the sheriff court was introduced in September 1976 to replace the old small debt procedure. After the new procedure had been in operation for about a year, the Sheriff Court Rules Council asked for comments on the working of the new procedure. Comments have been re-

ceived and will be considered. Furthermore, I am currently considering the possibility of setting up a voluntary experimental procedure for small claims in one sheriff court.

Mr. Hamilton: We all welcome the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend has just made, but does it not excite the suspicion that this experiment is simply a belated attempt by the Scottish Office to follow the example set in England in setting up a much superior small claims system?

The Lord Advocate: I can absolve the Scottish Office, because it is my ministerial responsibility, but there are some limitations on the new English system which need not restrict a Scottish scheme, nor is there any good reason to consider the position in England alone.
I have been looking at other systems in the United States of America, Australia and some Continental countries. The new experimental scheme for Scotland that I have in mind would be based on this wider perspective. This is a subject that has great international interest and I hope to say something about it at the forthcoming Council of Europe conference in Copenhagen, which my hon. Friend may know about.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURT OF SESSION

Mrs. Bain: asked the Lord Advocate if he will meet the Lord President of the Court of Session.

The Lord Advocate: I have informal meetings with the Lord President of the Court of Session from time to time as the occasion requires.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Lord Advocate therefore take an early opportunity to discuss the difficulties experienced by solicitors who are attempting to have legal aid awarded to clients, particularly women in the context of aliment payments where husbands have moved south of the border? Does he appreciate the hardship that is caused in these circumstances, and does he envisage any legal change in the near future?

The Lord Advocate: I appreciate that there is a genuine problem here, but there is little that I can add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of


State for Scotland on 15th February 1978 in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member.
The Administration of Justice Act 1977 provides that Court of Session decrees—as distinct from the sheriff court—registered in the High Court of England and Wales may be re-registered in magistrates' courts and enforced there. This provision will be brought into operation by a commencement order as soon as the necessary rules of court have been made.

Mr. Fairbairn: Reluctant as I am, on any general question, to raise a specific matter which is not on the Order Paper, I wonder whether the Lord Advocate could consider the difficulties which clients have in tendering pleas in summary cases, when they have to tender a plea not just of guilty or not guilty but "Guilty under deletion of" or in reply to the question "Guilty to what?", and thus give a plea which is specific—which only a solicitor can do—now that the Act of Adjournal forbids the solicitor from pleading on behalf of his client.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a genuine problem, but it should not be exaggerated. A little common sense on all sides will probably yield a solution to this problem.

Mr. Rifkind: When the Lord Advocate meets the Lord President of the Court of Session, will he discuss with him the need to improve the system of appeals against summary conviction, as proposed by the committee under Lord Thomson? When do the Government intend to implement these recommendations?

The Lord Advocate: I cannot answer the last question and, eo ipso I cannot answer the first.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL CASES (DELAY)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate what steps he will take to reduce delays in court hearings of criminal cases.

The Lord Advocate: Problems of delay arise mainly in Glasgow. The latest available figures for sheriff and jury cases in Glasgow are as follows: 279 cases awaiting preparation, 248 cases being prepared, 193 cases prepared awaiting allocation of date for trial, and 183 cases ready for

trial on dates which have been fixed. In mid-February the corresponding figures were 289, 202, 185 and 151 respectively. I hope hon. Members will bear with me, because I think these figures are of some importance. The two additional sheriff and jury courts which came into operation at the beginning of March 1978 enable an additional 16–18 cases to be dealt with each week.
It will be seen that the largest backlogs are in the categories of cases not prepared. This work is largely done by precognition officers. Steps have been taken to increase their number in Glasgow.
However, I should point out that a material contribution to the reduction of the backlog of cases awaiting trial could be made if persons who initially plead not guilty and ultimately plead guilty were to change their pleas in time for the date of their trials to be reallocated. Last year pleas of guilty were intimated at or shortly before the trial in no less than 46 per cent. of sheriff and jury cases and in no less than 54 per cent. of summary cases. It is not obvious to me that it is in the best interests of a person who is prepared to accept his guilt that he should have the charge hanging over him for a period of months and then receive a term of imprisonment which could have elapsed had he pled guilty at the outset. Similar considerations apply in the case of fines.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Lord Advocate aware of the widespread concern created by recently highly publicised cases in which delays of not months but up to three years have taken place in bringing criminal cases to court, and that delays of this sort can undermine the course of justice? I very much appreciate the action to which the Lord Advocate referred, but does he believe that the action that he has outlined will be adequate to reduce the delays in Glasgow, which, as he says, are and have been very serious for some time?

The Lord Advocate: The fact that a very small number of cases have been highly publicised is really an indication that they are unusual, and in that I take some satisfaction, because in this respect Scotland compares favourably with many other jurisdictions on the matter of delay. It is not unusual to have delays of that order in many other jurisdictions in


Western Europe. But I am not satisfied with any unnecessary delay in the administration of justice. I have received or have called for reports on all these cases, and will see what lessons are to be learned from them.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the Lord Advocate aware that with the pressure building up on the public prosecution system, particularly in the West of Scotland, this in itself leads to a situation in which the fiscal is not available to discuss a partial plea of guilty when it would be logical to do so, in order to save a great deal of time, which, as the Lord Advocate has stressed, is so important?
Does the Lord Advocate agree that very often last-minute pleas of guilty are made precisely because there has been no one available with the decision-making responsibility, as used to be the case in the old days, and that we now have a vicious circle?
Does the Lord Advocate accept that the delay also causes great hardship to many accused persons? He will be aware of cases where accused persons before jury trials have been summoned sometimes on five different occasions, thereby losing infinite job opportunities or, if they have a job, a great deal of salary.

The Lord Advocate: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that there are occasions when accused persons are prejudiced and, indeed, occasions when accused persons are in a predicament because an agreed plea, or a plea to part of a charge, cannot be negotiated. That aspect, however, is probably a relatively small part of the problem. The problem—I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept this—is one of shortage of staff, both procurators-fiscal and support staff, and it is crucial for us to be prepared to spend the public money necessary in order to ensure that our public prosecution system can be effectively administered. I hope that the whole House will support me in that respect.

Mr. Fairbairn: Since we have the very civilised rule in Scotland that a man cannot be held in prison for 110 days without his trial concluding, will the Lord Advocate also try to make it a civilised precedent in Scotland that if a man gets bail he is also tried within 110 days?

The Lord Advocate: I am happy to accept that as an objective. Unfortunately I cannot hope to bring it down to 110 days.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At this point I should like to raise with you a matter of order relating to today's Order Paper on which, as third Order, there appears the Committee stage of the Protection of Children Bill—a measure which I think commands general support in the House and which hon. Members wish to see reach the statute book. The point I wish to put to you is that as the normal notice of this business being taken today was not given—indeed, I appreciate that if it were to be taken today notice could not be given last Thursday—and especially as hon. Members nowadays, since they do not receive delivery of the Order Paper, are not able to be aware of the business until they actually enter the Chamber, hon. Members particularly concerned with this order, and especially hon. Members desiring to move amendments to it, have been placed in great difficulty.
I say this particularly with regard to the fact that there is a matter affecting Northern Ireland which is known to, and I believe accepted by, the Government. In these circumstances may I make a suggestion in order to relieve the difficulty to which I have drawn your attention, namely, that the Government—having established by placing it upon the Order Paper that this is henceforward a Government Order of the Day—might be satisfied to proceed minimally with it tonight so as to report Progress in order that it can be put down again for completion after due notice?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), with his customary courtesy, gave me notice of this point of order, which enables me to give him a considered reply.
On Friday last when objection was taken in the Committee stage of the Protection of Children Bill, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), as the Member in charge of the Bill, gave notice that the Committee stage would be set down for Monday. The Bill accordingly appeared among the remaining Orders


of the day for Monday, and it was carried over to the Remaining Orders for yesterday in the ordinary way.
Last night, with the agreement of the Member in charge, the Government gave instructions that the Bill should be placed on the effective Orders. As the Bill has been before the House, among the Remaining Orders, since Monday last, I must rule that nothing out of order has occurred in placing it among the effective Orders today.
It is, of course, open to the Government to provide some of their own time for the discussion of a Private Member's Bill. When they do so, it is the practice to distinguish the name of the Bill with a star, as is done with Government Orders. As hon. Members will see, this practice has been followed.
The right hon. Gentleman and the House will have noticed that the Protection of Children Bill has not been exempted from the Ten O'clock Rule, so that it can only be considered if no objection is taken.

NORTHERN IRELAND (WESTMINSTER REPRESENTATION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the representation of Northern Ireland in this House.
A conference was set up last July under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, to consider, and make recommendations on, the number of parliamentary constituencies that there should be in Northern Ireland. The conference reported in February of this year and its report was published as Command Paper 7110. I express the gratitude of the Government to you, Mr. Speaker, for presiding over that conference, and to those right hon. and hon. Members who served on it.
The conference recommended that the number of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland should be 17, but that, in order to be able to overcome practical difficulties, the Boundary Commission should be given power to vary that number, subject to a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 18.
The Government accept these recommendations and, as parliamentary circumstances permit, will introduce a Bill to make the necessary amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. I should add that the time required to carry out the statutory procedures of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland to fix the new constituency boundaries is such that the next General Election will take place on the existing basis.

Mrs. Thatcher: We welcome the decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference to increase the number of seats for Northern Ireland to 17. May I put two questions to the Prime Minister on his statement? First, he said that he will introduce legislation "as parliamentary circumstances permit". As this Bill will be a very short one—I believe two clauses—as it was an overwhelming decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and as we Conservatives will do our best to ensure that the Bill has a speedy passage, may we assume that the phrase "as parliamentary circumstances permit" includes the probability that the Bill will be introduced and passed through all its stages before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Secondly, may I ask a question about the Parliamentary Boundary Commission? The Prime Minister will recollect that in the published evidence given before Mr. Speaker's Conference the representatives of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission said that it would take four years, or was likely to take up to four years, from the passage of the legislation to complete their work on the change of numbers of boundaries. Is it possible to give the Parliamentary Boundary Commission any authority immediately to start that work or is it necessary to introduce the legislation forthwith in order to give it that authority?

The Prime Minister: I specifically used the phrase "as parliamentary circumstances permit" because there is a lot of work ahead of Parliament. Although we are ready to get this Bill on the statute book—and we certainly intend to do so—there is another full Session of this Parliament ahead of us. That is the reason why I added at the end—had there been any difficulty about it I would have thought differently—that the new seats


cannot operate for the next General Election. I think that the House can be satisfied that the Government will introduce the legislation. But in view of the pressure on our time this year, it does not mean that we shall necessarily do it this Session. If it is not this Session it will be next Session. Then the Boundary Commission can get to work.
As to the Boundary Commissioners' work, they can start work at any time that they think appropriate, because they have to produce a report between 1979 and 1984. But I understand the practice is that they would not publish any of their preliminary work until the Bill had received its Royal Assent. I also read the evidence that was given to Mr. Speaker's Conference, and although I gather that the Boundary Commission took four years last time, I deduced from the evidence of the Boundary Commission deputy chairman that it would not necessarily take anything like that time on the next occasion.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be satisfaction in Northern Ireland at the Government's decision to remedy an injustice which has existed since 1920? Is he aware that this satisfaction is shared by all sensible people in Northern Ireland who recognise that such a step can only be beneficial to every citizen of Northern Ireland?
In view of the pledge of support from the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to avoid delay? Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that precious time can be saved if the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission is encouraged to resume its activities, as there is a precedent for this, as he knows, in the activities of the Great Britain Boundary Commissions in making preparations for direct elections to the European Assembly?

The Prime Minister: I can say to the hon. Member that certainly we shall avoid delay on this matter. There is no desire for delay. We have an overwhelming report from the Speaker's Conference and, therefore, we shall put through the legislation.
As regards the Boundary Commission, as the hon. Member knows, we have no control over the manner in which it does

its work. However, I deduce from the evidence which was given that the Commission will want to proceed with its preliminary work, and no doubt the Commissioners will read the observations of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the Leader of the Opposition and myself.

Mr. David Steel: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish to support the findings of your conference, Mr. Speaker and the passage of the necessary legislation. However, in view of the fact that it was beyond the remit of your conference to consider the electoral system, and considering that the previous Government thought it right to introduce proportional representation again for the Consultative Assembly, as did the present Government for the European elections in the Province, would it not be consistent and helpful both to community relations and to the speed of the work of the Boundary Commission if we had a system of proportional representation in the proposed legislation?

The Prime Minister: I have a feeling that if that were introduced into the Bill it would no longer be as non-controversial as the Leader of the Opposition said it would be. So I think that we had perhaps better take this one step at a time I have a feeling also that I would not even take all of my hon. Friends with me if I recommended proportional representation.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will not take all of his right hon. and hon. Friends with him if he introduces the Bill anyway? Can he explain why there has been a complete inversion of the bipartisan policy, from the first White Paper of the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) to statements in the House by the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that the first progress to be made in Northern Ireland is to have devolved government as the best means of protecting democracy there? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, before we have any legislation on a profoundly important constitutional matter upsetting the whole of the 1920 settlement, the Government will at least have the decency to publish a proper White Paper explaining the Government's volte face on this aspect of policy?

The Prime Minister: The Government have accepted an overwhelming recommendation from the Speaker's Conference, and that is the usual procedure. It is hardly a volte face. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. However, certainly I go along with him to this extent—and it is a very important one—that the addition of seats to this House in order to correct an under-representation should in no way and in no circumstances be taken as a substitute for devolved government in Northern Ireland as soon as it is possible to introduce it.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is very unfair, at a time when Scotland and Wales, which have proportionately higher representation than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, are being given so much parliamentary time to the introduction of devolved Administrations, Northern Ireland should be denied its fair representation, especially as there are no plans at present for it to have any form of regional administration?

The Prime Minister: That is not a matter which lies totally within the control of the United Kingdom Government. Our policy on this matter is quite clear, and I have just restated it. The decisions on these matters are not wholly for us. They also concern the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that his statement will not be welcomed by the whole community in Northern Ireland and that the satisfaction referred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will be limited to the majority Unionist-cum-Loyalist community in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the 12 seats which Northern Ireland has held in this House hitherto were part and parcel of the settlement of 1920 which created the State of Northern Ireland and that, if those 12 seats are tampered with, the door will be open to question the very existence of the Northern Ireland State? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me, further, that this statement that the Government will support the recommendation for an increase in the number of seats will make it far more difficult to try to bring about any power-sharing Administration in Northern Ireland and that the Unionist-

Loyalist community will stand with their backs to the wall and say that now that they have succeeded in getting integration, be it creeping or not, they will move no further in trying to accommodate the Government's view of power-sharing government? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me, finally, that I hope to have considerable support from the Government Benches to fight as vehemently as we can to prevent this legislation from reaching the statute book?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will rally support wherever he can, and he has a great deal of sympathy and understanding in this House. But it would be quite improper for the Government to overturn a recommendation carried in such a manner by a Speaker's Conference, made up of representatives of all the parties in this House, and I think that we would get ourselves into a lot of trouble from other quarters if we were to do that. It is proper for the Government to accept this recommendation, and I hope that the House will carry it in due course.

Mr. Gow: Is it not clear from the Prime Minister's statement that the Government are following delaying tactics in this matter? Have not more than nine weeks elapsed since Mr. Speaker reported to the Prime Minister, and has not the Prime Minister told the House in plain terms this afternoon that the Government have no intention whatever of introducing a Bill in this Session of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have said already. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) can put his own construction on it. I think the House is quite clear about what I said and the way that I meant it.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend undertake not to be constrained in these or any other matters by the limitations of comprehension and political generosity of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Craig: Does the Prime Minister recollect the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) protesting about the infringement of the 1920 settlement when the Stormont Parliament was abolished?

The Prime Minister: I am long acquainted with the affairs of Ireland, and I know that historians are in superabundance there. Sometimes I wish that we could remember a little less of our history in Northern Ireland and deal with the situation as it exists today. The situation as it exists has been pronounced upon by your Conference, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that that is the right way to proceed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: There are two hon. Members on each side of the House seeking to catch my eye. I shall call each of them in turn.

Mr. Litterick: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these proposals are unlikely to make a constructive contribution to ending the civil disturbances which have been going on in Ulster now for nine years? Will my right hon. Friend take on board the fact that this decision will be seen by many people in Ulster and many more in the Republic of Ireland as a pre-emption of a number of political options which could bring these civil disturbances to an end?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that there are civil disturbances going on in Northern Ireland at present. There is a group of men who say that they have political ends and who are acting as murderers. But that is not a question of civil disturbance, and all the weight and authority of this House of Commons should be brought to bear against them.

Mr. Biffen: Although I appreciate that the current legislative commitments of the Government may make it impracticable to think in terms of this legislation being effected during the current Session of Parliament, will the Prime Minister give serious and sympathetic consideration at least to the publication of the Bill during the current Session of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall give consideration to that. I do not want us to have a false division here. There will be those who are opposed to anything being done. That is clear already. But my consideration of this matter is limited by the fact that it is not possible to increase these seats, if the House so wills, by the next General Election. Therefore, I think that we can take this in due

order. That is what the Government will do, and I shall consider what the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said.

Mr. Dalyell: In considering these difficult matters, has the Prime Minister reflected how long a situation can endure in which 71 MPs from Scotland can vote and speak on the most delicate matters of politics in relation to Derry but not to Dundee and to Belfast but not to Bath-gate? How long can that situation continue?

The Prime Minister: Almost indefinitely.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Has the Prime Minister considered the fact that if the Scotland Bill is enacted, this House may be under pressure to decrease the number of Scottish Westminster MPs? At the same time the House may be increasing the number of MPs from Northern Ireland. Is this not a severe inconsistency, which is making a mockery of the Government's devolution policy?

The Prime Minister: I am not discussing that policy. The House will have plenty of time to do that. I would not want to suggest that anything was a mockery over which Mr. Speaker presided.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) for his Standing Order No. 9 application, may I remind hon. Members, as there are far more here than at the beginning of Questions, that I made an important statement today about open questions addressed to Ministers other than the Prime Minister. It is in the interests of hon. Members that when they can get Hansard, they read what I said.

NEUTRON BOMB (FRENCH TEST EXPLOSION)

Mr. Thorne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The question of the explosion by the French Government of a neutron bomb


I apologise for not giving earlier notice of my intention to raise this matter but it was only later in the day that we heard the news about the French neutron bomb being exploded. I am aware that no Minister of the Crown has direct responsibility for the French neutron bomb test in the Pacific although it is clear that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and others have responsibility for Anglo-French understanding and unity, which may be endangered by this unilateral action by the French Government.
In any event, the explosion of the neutron bomb by any Power in any part of the world raises highly important matters for the British people. I understand that this is a short-distance weapon, and its development by France threatens those countries closest to France, particularly West Germany and Britain.
The report described the test as a full-scale laboratory test aimed at achieving the production of an operational neutron bomb in three to four years. The French papers have described it as an event of the first magnitude. The test follows closely President Carter's decision to defer production of the neutron bomb in the United States.
In view of our own Prime Minister's reference recently to the delicate balance between military advantage and political disadvantage, this explosion tends to tip the balance towards the creation of major political disadvantages. For example, what is West Germany's reaction likely to be, and what influence are we able to bring in these matters? The French action is likely to exacerbate international tension and once again to renew the cold war. Therefore this is a matter of urgency and I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to accept my motion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) gave me notice as soon as he could that he wished to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9 namely,
The question of the explosion by the French Government of a neutron bomb.
I have listened very carefully to what he has said. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the various factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reasons for the decision.
It is not for me to decide whether this matter should be debated. I must decide whether there should be an emergency debate. Although I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member's representations, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

PICKETING

Mr. Nicholas Ridley presented a Bill to amend the law in relation to picketing in connection with trade disputes; to give police authorities certain powers with respect to picketing; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the matter of the Proposal for a draft Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress 18th April]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

3.57 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): On a point of order, Mr. Murton. At the start of our proceedings yesterday I undertook on behalf of the Government to consider the points of order raised by Members of the Committee. The basic concern that they expressed was that a group of amendments selected for debate raising the question of what is commonly called "the threshold requirement" in the referendum on this Bill might not be reached in the debate, and, as a result, it would not be possible for the Committee to reach a conclusion on the matter.
The timetable under which the Committee is operating after 5 p.m. today allows six hours for debate on Clauses 82 and 83. The Government believe it should be possible for the Committee to debate the threshold amendment and vote upon it, and we hope that that will be the case.
The Government are opposed to the concept of the threshold for the referendum and if the opportunity occurs in debate we shall recommend that the Committee does not accept the proposition. Nevertheless, we feel that it would be wrong if the Committee were deprived of an opportunity to express its view on this important question.
If necessary, the Government will technically move Amendment No. 325, although we are opposed to it, to enable a conclusion to be reached. In the light of this assurance I hope that we shall have a debate of reasonable length on the group of amendments in question and reach a conclusion in the normal way.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. May I ask your guidance on whether my understanding is correct? Do the Government

intend to give a facility for the threshold amendment, which has been put forward by Labour Back Benchers, to be voted upon? Am I right in understanding that the Government are now giving an opportunity for a Division on this amendment and therefore giving the Committee an opportunity to come to a decision? There is substantial objection to this clause in the context of the Wales Bill. Whereas we accept the argument that, the House having expressed its view on the Scotland Bill, there is legitimacy in the proposition for a threshold in the case of a legislative assembly, we certainly do not accept that there is any argument in favour of a similar clause being introduced in the Wales Bill because the Welsh Assembly has an executive character—

The Chairman: I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) would come to the point.

Mr. Thomas: I am seeking clarification. Are the Government giving facility to this amendment to be introduced and voted on in this Committee?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I point out that the Government are giving Back Benchers no more of a facility than was given at the Report stage of the Scotland Bill when an attempt was made by Back Benchers to reverse an earlier decision of the House on a similar question in relation to that Bill. The objections of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) are completely unwarranted.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Are we to understand that the Government are providing that, even if debate continues on the three or four banks of amendments that precede the 40 per cent. amendment, thereby precluding debate on that amendment, there will be a vote on it to permit the threshhold to be introduced? Do we therefore understand, as we suspected on the Scotland Bill, that although the Government openly pretend to be against the 40 per cent., they are leaning over backwards to get it into the Bill and stop the Assemblies?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. At this stage, the Chair must give a ruling. Let me say


plainly that the Chair is in no position, and has no desire, to interpret what the Government wish to do in regard to any amendment. Under the business motion, it is perfectly in order for the Government to move any amendment when the guillotine falls.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I greatly welcome the Government's decision to put forward the amendment in my name, but there are three forms of referendum proposed in various amendments. Is it not an indication that the House is a prisoner of its procedures if, in consequence of the way in which our business is dealt with, we do not have an opportunity to debate the alternatives?
Will you indicate, Mr. Murton, that the amendments that should be selected for debate are those where there is a possibility that the Government are likely to be defeated? All amendments are important to the movers and the Chair has to make a subjective judgment as to their importance, but there are some cases where it is clear that there is a possibility of the House reversing the wishes of the Government, and these are the amendments which we should be given the opportunity to debate.
I welcome the fact that the Government will give us the opportunity to vote on Amendment No. 325, but I invite you to vary your selection to bring forward the group of amendments taken with Amendment No. 103 so that the House may decide this vital issue which, important though the preceding amendments are, must, on any subjective assessment, be more important than the other amendments to be debated after 5 p.m.

The Chairman: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. My short answer is that I am not prepared to vary the selection of amendments. It is entirely a matter for the judgment of hon. Members who have put down amendments to decide which are the most important. If I were to vary the selection, I should be doing a disservice to other hon. Members who have amendments preceding those grouped with Amendment No. 103.

Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Since the announce-

ment about the 40 per cent. amendment has come belatedly at the last moment, without any notice being given to the House and at a time when there are considerable fears that selective pairing has been taking place so that hon. Members who would wish to be present for debates and votes are not present, is it not clear that it must offend against the rules of order that, without any consultation with those responsible for other amendments, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdere (Mr. Evans), Amendment No. 325 has been plucked out by the Government with the view, as a result of the ruses that have already been deployed, and the hope that, without debate, the vital issues that should be discussed on a matter of this importance shall not be discussed? Is it not clear that the Government hope that, by stealth, they will succeed in smothering the view that exists in the House and, by stealth and this type of ruse, will frustrate the genuine will of the House and the wishes of the people of Wales?
Is it possible—against the wishes of hon. Members who tabled Amendment No. 325, because they wish to have an open debate so that Wales should understand the issue and to have the debate at a time when hon. Members are not tricked into being absent—that the Government, by this stratagem, may seek to move an amendment that they will invite the House to defeat?

The Chairman: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must say at once that nothing of what he said is a matter for the Chair.
As the Minister has said, there are six hours available for debate and three groups of amendments preceding the group that appears to have particular interest for some hon. Members. The matter is in the Committee's own hands. If it desires to debate the fourth group, perhaps it might be possible to expedite debate on the preceding three groups.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I have given you notice of this point of order concerning Amendments Nos. 310 and 311 which have not been selected due, I believe, to a misunderstanding about which new subsection they refer to. The amendments would provide for the devolution of responsibility for the Countryside Commission in Wales to


be facilitated under the Bill even if the people of Wales, against our judgment, voted "No" in the referendum. Responsibility would then rest with the Welsh Office rather than with the Assembly. This is a matter that could stand on its own feet. I should be grateful for your guidance.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Carnaervon (Mr. Wigley) was kind enough to give me prior notice that he intended to raise this point of order. I have already declined to vary my selection in respect of a set of amendments in another connection and equally I cannot do so in this case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasons for that decision.

Clause 72

DETERMINATION OF ISSUES AS TO ASSEMBLY'S POWERS

Amendment No. 315 proposed [18th April],] in page 29, line 16, at end add
'or whether the failure to take any action constitutes a breach of the law'.—[Mr. Raison.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that we are also considering Amendment No. 342, in page 29, line 16, at end add
'and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Attorney General and any other person may institute and the Assembly may defend proceedings seeking a determination of any question whether the Assembly is in default in the fulfilment of any duty placed on it or transferred to it by this Act and seeking an order requiring the fulfilment of such duty, provided that no such proceedings shall be instituted by any person other than the Attorney General unless that person is or would be aggrieved by such default or has an interest in the fulfilment of such duty.'.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): When the debate was interrupted last night, I had had time to make only a few preliminary remarks. I shall begin by summarising them briefly.
I emphasised that the functions of the Assembly are essentially ministerial in character and that the Assembly will be performing those functions on behalf of the Crown in precisely the same way as do Ministers of the Crown. In that respect, there will be no difference

between the Assembly and Ministers, whether in regard to their statutory functions or the prerogative and non-statutory functions mentioned in the debate yesterday.
Whether we are referring to Clauses 11 and 12 or to Clauses 61 and 62, we are not speaking of powers and functions different in character from those exercised by Ministers on behalf of the Crown. The Assembly is a collective body acting on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Can the Attorney-General give an example drawn from ordinary United Kingdom legislation of powers exercised by Ministers analogous to the extraordiary range of powers under Clause 11?

The Attorney-General: There are a range of powers under Clause 11. I suppose that the answer is, for example, the sort of functions that are carried out by the Minister with responsibilities for sport and the Minister with responsibilities for the arts. These matters do not necessarily come under the statutory sanction of a piece of legislation. That is what the clause deals with in that respect.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday that as regards Clauses 11 and 12, and to a certain extent Clause 13, these are the sort of powers exercised by Ministers of the Crown even if they step outside what is properly or constitutionally the subject of ministerial powers as such. Will my right hon. and learned Friend expand on that statement? It was not especially clear.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend must have misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that certain powers in the Bill will be given to the Assembly as a body in its capacity as Ministers of the Crown. We have the other powers that are provided for in Clauses 11 and 12 that are of a prerogative nature. The Assembly may exercise those powers if it wishes. In so doing, it will be exercising them as Ministers of the Crown. I thought I had made that point abundantly clear. The Assembly will be exercising such powers in exactly the same way as its other powers.
The powers of a prerogative nature are put into a different category as they do not stem directly from specific statutory


powers other than the powers contained in Clauses 11 and 12. Those powers are provided merely to ensure that it is the Assembly that may be able to exercise prerogative powers that would otherwise be exercised, no doubt, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales or by other Ministers.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is it not true, in answer to the question "What constraints will there be on the Assembly in respect of these powers", that appear to be wide, that there are financial constraints all round and that financial control of the Assembly lies in the House of Commons?

The Attorney-General: There are financial constraints that will govern the Assembly's expenditure, whether we are dealing with matters that are directly transferred to the Assembly as statutory powers or with prerogative powers, in exactly the same way as there are constraints on Ministers in the exercise both of their statutory and prerogative powers.

Sir David Renton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to doubt when he says that there is no difference between the Assembly and Ministers? In Clause 10(2), it is stated:
Any function given to a Minister of the Crown … under an enactment listed in Schedule 3 … shall continue to be exercisable by him as regards Wales notwithstanding that it is exercisable by the Assembly by virtue of subsection (1).
In other words, there is there concurrent power. At present, Ministers do not have concurrent powers with bodies that are below them. Neither do bodies which, for example, are like local authorities have concurrent powers with Ministers who are above them. Therefore, to say that there is no difference between the Assembly and Ministers does not appear, with deep respect to the Attorney-General, to be an accurate statement of the law.

The Attorney-General: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose experience in these matters is unrivalled, I disagree with him. It is normal for Ministers to have concurrent powers. The fact that concurrent powers exist does not make any difference to the principle which I have enunciated and which the hon. Member for Aylesbury

(Mr. Raison) rightly enunciated in his opening remarks.
4.15 p.m.
I turn from that point to recapitulate as briefly as possible the few remarks I was able to make yesterday before the guillotine fell. The second point that I sought to make was that, as several right hon. and hon. Members expressed yesterday, the Assembly, acting on behalf of the Crown, must be assumed to be a responsible body that will act responsibly. I qualify that to this extent only, that I should say—I am making no party point—that it will act as responsibly as Ministers who will exercise parallel functions.
That principle is basic to the whole concept of this legislation. It rests on a foundation to which I hope we all subscribe—namely, that the Assembly will be a democratically elected body responsible to its electorate and, for all I know, with changes of political control from time to time like any other elected body, including the House of Commons. I do not believe that that proposition is seriously in issue.
It is said that on occasions the Assembly, however responsible, may act in breach of the law, whether by commission or omission, whether by seeking to exercise powers that have not been transferred or by ignoring duties laid upon it by Parliament, whether by error or by intent. I accept that. The clause would be unnecessary if such possibilities did not exist. I welcome the fact that there has been no opposition to the principle of the clause but only attempts to strengthen it. I in no way deprecate those attempts. On the contrary, I welcome the constructive speeches of right hon. and hon. Members and their careful scrutiny of the clause to ascertain what gaps it leaves and whether and how they should be filled.
As I shall show, I am able to go quite a long way along the same route as right hon. and hon. Members, or, at least, in the same direction. I hope to ease most, if not all, of their anxieties.
The amendment raises three substantial points. The hon. Member for Aylesbury—I summarise his careful argument shortly—is concerned that Clause 72 embraces acts of commission but not of omission. The clause enables me to ask


for a ruling of the court where in my judgment what the Assembly has done, or proposes to do, is beyond its powers, but not in the opposite situation where the Assembly does not act when it is under a statutory duty to act, or perhaps because it wrongly takes the view that it has no power to act. The hon. Gentleman is right. Issues of that sort may arise either way.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it conceivable, given the political reality, that an Assembly born in these circumstances will ever take the view that it has no power to act? That is stretching human nature rather far.

The Attorney-General: If my hon. Friend had waited for one moment, he would have heard me explain just how that situation might very well arise.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury is right. Such issues may arise either way. I fully accept that, however anxious the Assembly or, for that matter, Ministers of any party may be to comply with the law, there is always a temptation to use what might be called a demarcation dispute to avoid taking unpopular action. That is the answer that I give to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Therefore, I am with the hon. Member for Aylesbury in spirit. However, it is necessary to work out just how far to go and in what form we should act so as to fill the gap. Indeed, Amendment No. 315 partly fills the gap. Therefore, I undertake that at a later stage of the Bill's progress the Government will table their own amendment to achieve this objective, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able in due course to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 342, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)—and may I take this opportunity of congratulating him on the "learned" part—raises two other points. The first is that it seeks to give to persons other than the Attorney-General the power to take action under the clauses. The view that the citizen should have a right to take proceedings against the Assembly if he has the requisite locus standi, and if, as the hon. and learned Gentleman put it, he is an aggrieved person or has the

requisite special interests, was supported by right hon. and hon. Members in the debate. It is entirely consistent with our existing system of judicial control of the Executive—that is, of those acting on behalf of the Crown—that the citizen, within the limits prescribed by our laws, should be able to bring proceedings in the courts against the Executive.
As I emphasised in opening, the Assembly will be the equivalent of Ministers acting on behalf of the Crown within the functions which are transferred to it or which it may operate by virtue of Clause 11. We think it right to put it on a par with Ministers in regard to the rights of citizens to seek judicial determinations.
Clause 80 enables orders to be made amending existing legislation as may appear to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the passage of the Bill. We intend to use that power to amend the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 so as to give to the citizen in relation to that Act the same rights against the Assembly as he has under the Act against Ministers of the Crown. I believe that that will achieve the intended objective of this part of the amendment but, I suggest, in a more satisfactory and comprehensive way than by tacking it on to Clause 72, which is concerned solely with the powers of the Attorney-General in particular circumstances. Thus in spirit we are with the Opposition on two of their three points, and I have given the Government's undertaking on them.
There remains the final point. The amendment would empower the courts to go beyond the provisions of Clause 72 and of the Crown Proceedings Act and of the law as it stands today in respect of Ministers of the Crown, since it would enable the courts to order the Assembly to fulfil a duty placed upon it. Thus, it seeks to give mandatory powers, though not restraining powers, by injunction.
It must be said at once that, in so far as the amendment would give any general power of enforcement, whether mandatory or injunctive, it would be treating the Assembly not as an organ of the Crown on a par with Ministers but as an inferior organ on a par with local authorities That would be contrary to the whole intent and spirit of the legislation and would get this new system off to a more precarious start.
Our system means that one may obtain a declaration of rights against those such as Ministers acting for the Crown but not, where they are acting on behalf of the Crown, orders compelling them to act in accordance with the law. There are many good constitutional reasons for that, but I suggest that this is not the time or place to debate our whole system of administrative law and the Committee would not wish me to do so. We expect those who act for the Crown to respect the determination of the court without being ordered to do so. The same system operates in the United States, even up to the Supreme Court. If that system is to be changed, it should be changed in the context of a review of our administrative law as a whole. It should not be changed as part of this Bill so as to place one organ of the Crown in a manifestly inferior position compared with other organs of the Crown.
The Assembly may transgress the law, and so may Ministers of the Crown, irrespective of party, but when rights have been judicially determined it is the essence of our system of the rule of law that Ministers give effect to those determinations. The same should operate for this newly created organ of the Crown. It is not to be assumed that it will cast aside the constitutional conventions and the rule of law. It would be wrong at its very birth to discriminate against it.
Therefore, I cannot accept the third point of the amendment. I hope that these proposals will not be pursued since I cannot advise the Committee to accept them. I have gone as far as I can—indeed, a very long way—in accepting the valuable thinking that underlies them.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I very much welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has been able to go as far as he has, and I also thank him for his kind words of congratulation to me. In view of what he said, I shall not recommend that we should divide the Committee.
I should like to deal with three points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On the first point, he said that he accepted the argument totally and would produce the appropriate amendment to deal with the problem in the way that he thought fit. Therefore, my

welcome for that statement can be unreserved.
As for the second point, the Attorney-General said that he intends to use Section 80 powers to amend the Crown Proceedings Act to enable the individual citizen who is aggrieved, or who has an interest, to take proceedings against the Welsh Assembly. Again, we very much welcome the fact that the spirit of Amendment No. 315 has been accepted to that extent, but before we commit ourselves not to raise the matter again, could the Attorney-General, at the same time as he puts forward his amendment to deal with the first point, also produce for the consideration of the House at least a draft of the way in which he would seek to amend the Crown Proceedings Act, so that we can see whether what he has in mind covers the same area as the amendment to which I spoke yesterday evening.
Obviously, it can be no more than a draft. I assume that it will cover the same ground, because the Attorney-General in his speech did not seek to differentiate in any way, but it would be helpful to see a draft.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that these matters are not entirely in my hands. I cannot give an absolute undertaking, but I shall do my best.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful for that asurance, and I am sure that we shall be able to have a sufficient indication of what is intended in order to allow us to form a view. I suspect that no amendment will be required to deal with that point.
On the third point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I would not seek to press the matter to a Division at this stage, I believe that it is something to which we may wish to return. I believe that the Attorney-General has raised issues of a political character which are not satisfactorily dealt with in what for this purpose was treated as purely a legal type of argument. The Attorney-General has proceeded on the basis that the Assembly is exactly on all fours with a Minister of the Crown and that so long as the law is altered in such a way procedurally, and from the point of view of language used, to allow the same remedies to be available


to citizens and to the Attorney-General as against public bodies, that deals with the matter.
I submit that that is not the correct approach. The fallacy of it can be illustrated by the existence of Clause 72. If we were talking about Ministers of the Crown, not only would it be unnecessary, it would be inconceivable, that the Attorney-General should be given a statutory right to take legal action against other Ministers of the Crown, because they would be members of one and the same Government and presumably either the Ministers of the Crown would have acted on the advice of the Attorney-General or he would have resigned, and the Ministers of the Crown would be acting on the advice of some Attorney-General who could be persuaded to give the appropriate advice.
4.30 p.m.
On either view of the matter, therefore, the Government, by including Clause 72 in the Bill, have recognised that it is not just a question of saying "Right, we are setting up a body which is like a Minister of the Crown. Let us use language and procedure to ensure that people have a right of action against such bodies as they would have against a Minister of the Crown". Once we say that the Attorney-General can bring an action against it we are immediately recognising the essential political reality that we may give the Welsh Assembly the powers of a Minister of the Crown but we are creating a separate, politically independent body which it is unrealistic to treat as in every sense a Minister of the Crown.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course, he is quite right. We do not get this situation with Ministers of the same Government, simply because they are Ministers of the same Government and therefore the matter simply would not arise, but we have a different situation here. On consideration, would he not agree with me that, none the less, that difference should be one to which effect should be given to the minimum possible extent? That is what we are doing here. Of course, it can be blown up into a very big difference, but here we are seeking to reduce the difference to the bare minimum.

Mr. Brittan: Now the Attorney-General is shifting his ground and presenting this question in a political manner, in that in his speech he was presenting it in what one might call a formalistic way, saying that really the Assembly is the equivalent of a Minister of the Crown and that therefore all that is necessary is that the individual citizen should be given the same rights of action as against the Minister of the Crown. What he is now saying is that although the Assembly is not really a Minister of the Crown and is a separate body—and the fact that the Attorney-General can bring actions against it shows that this is so—none the less, as, in effect, a political judgment, we ought to the largest possible extent to treat the Assembly as if it were a Minister of the Crown.

The Attorney-General: Obviously, the hon. and learned Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I am sure that that is my fault, in not being as learned as he is. I have made the point ad nauseam that the Assembly is in the position of Ministers of the Crown, but it is not—and I have never attempted to suggest that it is—in the position of Ministers of the Crown who are part of the same Government as the Westminster Government. That is the difference. All I am saying is that that difference has to be recognised in Clause 72 and should not be blown up any further than is necessary.

Mr. Brittan: The concept that "Ministers of the Crown" are not the same as "Ministers of the Crown in the same Government" is a very dangerous and difficult one, because the only kind of Ministers of the Crown of which I am aware who are not Ministers in the same Government are Ministers of the Crown in the sense that they are Ministers of the Crown in the sense of the Crown being the Head of an independent State—an analogy surely even more dangerous to draw than that which I sought to draw, and one which I am sure the Attorney-General would not wish to sustain.
The reality of the matter is that this is a profoundly political question and has very little to do with the law in a technical sense. I suspect that some, at least, of the hon. Gentlemen in the House will greatly welcome that fact. The reality of the situation is that the Government are saying "We will perpetuate a fiction, that because they are given the powers


of a Minister of the Crown, we will ignore the fact that this is really a separate, although mercifully not independent, body. Therefore, we will treat it as if it were Ministers of the Crown and say 'You cannot issue an order to the Assembly'".
I do not wish to raise political hackles. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying we are not anticipating trouble round every corner, but even he conceded that the possibility of a conflict of this kind must be faced and that the appropriate mechanism should be placed in the Bill for dealing with it. The mechanism is a legal one. If the body is really a separate one, is it not appropriate that it should at least be made clear to that body that the courts which are to police these disputes should have power to issue an order?
Turning on its head the argument that the Attorney-General has put, I would argue that by making it clear in the enacting statute that the courts have a power to order the Assembly to take the action that is necessary to ensure that it complies with the law one is making it less rather than more likely that there will be resistance and political trouble, because if we leave it simply that the courts can make a declaration of right, as in the case of a real Minister of the Crown, that is all right as far as a single Government is concerned, since that Government can ensure that the Minister complies with the court order.
If we are talking of two completely separate Governments, however, at the very least the position would be clarified if, at the outset, it were made clear that the courts could not merely make an abstract declaration of legal rights, duties, obligations and powers but could issue an order as to what should be done to ensure compliance. Then at least, taking the right hon. Gentleman's words at face value, if the Welsh Assembly is as law-abiding and as anxious to observe constitutional proprieties as he believes, and as we all hope it will be, at least it will know what it has to do. Otherwise, it will be faced with an abstract declaration of a kind which may be appropriate in respect of a real Minister of the Crown but, I would suggest, is totally inappropriate for what is, in effect, an independent body, or at least a totally separate

body with a different political constituency and a different political base.
I leave it at that, but I hope that what I have said will at least enable the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter. We are grateful for the two points on which he is moving and we hope that when he comes forward with an amendment he will also be able to express a view on reconsideration of the matters that I have just put to him. We, too, will reserve our position with regard to that.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that it is nailed boots with mud on them going into the Temple or the Law Courts, but I have the comfort of speaking to the unanimous, undisputed opinion of Government Back Benchers. With one of the signs that so often shed a blinding flash of light and illumine our proceedings—

The Attorney-General: This happens to you every day.

Mr. Dalyell: It certainly happened to me last night at the beginning of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech, when he said:
Indeed, it is right that when we look at this clause—and the powers generally which are thought to be necessary in the situation which we shall be facing when the Welsh Assembly is set up—we should look at it in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did. We are not facing a situation of, as it were, a hostile tribe. We are facing a situation in which there will be conferred upon the Welsh Assembly powers which are essentially powers of Ministers of the Crown".
Today he reinforced this, because he said that we must assume it to be responsible, acting responsibly. He said that this is basic to the whole concept of devolution.
My view is that we would not be here on Day 41 if we were not discussing the activities of precisely a hostile tribe, because there is a hostile tribe.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend assails himself.

Mr. Dalyell: There is an element of truth in that, because I behave like most politicians will behave.

The Attorney-General: Oh, no.

Mr. Dalyell: Oh, yes. The serious point is that only a man who came new to our proceedings on Day 41 could have come out with such a statement. That is


the trouble in all this. Here we have intelligent, able senior Ministers who are only now beginning to give their minds to precisely what these powers are about. Indeed, it is precisely what happened the other day when the Minister of State, Treasury, came new to this. He came to the Dispatch Box thinking that it was any old technical debate and that he could just read his Treasury brief.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General comes in new after the rest of us have been educating ourselves for 40 days. Only a virgin to our debates could possibly have gained the idea that we must not treat the Assembly as a hostile tribe. If there had not been a hostile tribe in Scottish politics nothing is surer than that the House of Commons would not have been discussing this Bill and a similar Bill for 41 days. Not since Julius Caesar and the Nervii has there been tribal activity like this. If anyone thinks that I am exaggerating he should have been at Garscadden when the Minister of State and I saw precisely the tribal activity that took place there on the Saturday before last.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not start on a round of geographical perambulations.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall cut the geography short and merely issue an invitation. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will find time to come to Hamilton, Blantyre or Larkhill—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to Westminster.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall not go on issuing geographical invitations. To come back to the point, Assemblies will not behave like this. If it were all a question of rational cosiness and of reasonable people, the Bill would not have been dreamed up. I see that the former Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has come into the Chamber. If everyone were to behave reasonably and rationally, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General thinks, the right hon. Member for Sidcup would not have come to Perth and made the kind of speeches that he made, and he would

not have given the commitments that he gave.
We are back at Day 1 of the story. I repeat, this is not the way to solve conflicts. Like every other senior Minister, as soon as there is danger of being drawn into this mire, drawn into the net, the right hon. Member for Sidcup takes to his heels and is through the doors of the Chamber at the very thought of it. When the other former Tory Prime Minister went to the House of Lords, he said to me "It is a terrible carry-on" and I replied "I know, Alec, it is a terrible carry-on, but you have some responsibility for the matter", and he looked at the heavens. No one wants to face the issues.
The issue here is the central issue, that the Assembly will not behave in the rational way in which my right hon. and learned Friend thinks it will behave. I want to make two quotations from his speech:
On the other hand, if one is talking about a local authority then there is no doubt that Ministers—the Attorney-General in particular—have that right. But here we are talking about ministerial powers—powers which are the exact parallel of the powers which at present are held by Ministers of the Crown—a Secretary of State or other Ministers.
But because it is recognised by the Government that it is desirable that any conflict that may exist in future—as to whether the powers are those of the Secretary of State in London or those of the Assembly in Wales—should in some way be determined then notwithstanding that they are ministerial powers this provision has been inserted in the Bill to enable the Attorney-General to—".—[Official Report, 18th April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 407–8].
4.45 p.m.
Have I got the wrong end of the stick in supposing that the Attorney-General, by this kind of invitation, will take the place of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of the Scotland Bill? If I am wrong, the Attorney-General will tell me. I get the impression that the issue that we are discussing is a very important one; it is the question of arbitration in cases of disagreement, and disagreement there will be. If the Attorney-General wants to correct me—

The Attorney-General: I usually respond to invitations of that nature. Of course the Attorney-General is not in the position of the Judicial Committee. All that the Attorney-General will do is


raise the issue before the court. The court will then decide. In exactly the same way, the issue will be raised in appropriate cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or other courts, and the courts will decide.

Mr. Dalyell: This raises the interesting question of which courts will decide. It is all very well to say that the courts will decide. If I understand them aright, Lord Scarman and Lord Wilberforce last night in the House of Lords gave the impression that they, as senior Law Lords, did not think that the traditional courts of this country were the place in which political argument between two political organisations—governmental bodies—should be settled. They argued that if we were to do this there should be a constiutional court in this country.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend took the opportunity to inform the Committee last night about certain developments in another place. On reading the record today, it is clear to me that he gave a totally one-sided view. Certain Law Lords advanced that proposition, but there were emphatic disagreements by others. My hon. Friend must make allowance for this.

Mr. Dalyell: They were outnumbered three to two—Lord Hailsham, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Dip-lock. For two Law Lords as senior as Lord Wilberforce and Lord Scarman to say this gives the impression to the layman that there is a problem here. I do not believe that Lord Wilberforce and Lord Scarman would say in a speech in the House of Lords that they thought that there should be a constitutional court to resolve these difficulties if they were not convinced of it.
The question put—I know that an answer cannot be given off the cuff 13 minutes before the guillotine falls—is whether the Attorney-General and the Government are satisfied with this way of settling disputes between the Welsh Assembly and the Westminster Government, because someone has to act as an arbitrator.
Furthermore, if there is to be serious discussion of a constitutional court for this country, the proper way to do it is for proposals to be set out at the beginning of a parliamentary Session, not to

have this kind of argument as a fag-end to the Wales Bill. I am not convinced by these glittering lawyers. There is a problem, and someone has to resolve the differences. There are great differences of opinion as to who that someone will be. I do not think that I misinterpret the argument.
When I hear some of the most distinguished Law Lords in the land arguing that the traditional courts of this country are not ideal for this purpose and that we should set up a constitutional court, I think that I am fair in asking the Attorney-General—who better?—what is the Government's view of a constitutional court and when, during these proceedings, they will comment on the remarks of the Law Lords in another place. Clearly, at 10 minutes to 5 o'clock it is not the time to do that when the guillotine falls at 5 o'clock. Nevertheless, a marker is put down at various stages of the Bill, and somehow I shall try to extract an answer. The Attorney-General may look fed up and bored, as various Ministers have done, but we have to extract an answer.

Mr. Raison: Before I reveal what I intend to do about my amendment, I should like to ask the Attorney-General a question. He said that I was right when I assumed that, broadly speaking, the powers of Ministers were being handed over to the Assembly and that the Assembly would have only the powers in relation to Wales that are at present held by Ministers. I think that that is a correct statement.
We then had a brief consideration of Clause 11, which was an illustration of this point. As I said last night, when Clause 11 had the spotlight on it because it was missed out earlier due to the guillotine, I was flabbergasted at what it does. The clause states that the Assembly may do anything which it considers appropriate to support museums, the Welsh language, and so on. The bone of what the Attorney-General said is that that is a prerogative power which already lies with Ministers of the Crown. Is he telling the House that Ministers of the Crown have the power to do anything that they consider appropriate for particular purposes?
I understand that this is a power which is not embodied in any statute. I suppose


that it is a power which derives from tradition. But I am flabbergasted if it is true that Ministers have the power to do anything that they consider appropriate. This revolutionises my view of the rule of law and statute.
Can the Attorney-General confirm that the power that is handed over to the Assembly in Clause 11 is exactly the same as the power that Ministers of the Crown in the United Kingdom Government already have?

The Attorney-General: Certainly, I can confirm that, subject to the requirement of financial sanction, where that is necessary. The Minister of State has given me one example that might help the hon. Member. He said that he has no statutory powers for the general welfare of the Welsh language, but no one would suggest that he should not concern himself with that, or, indeed, that he should not spend such money as he is entitled to spend, within the financial constraints, on advancing the Welsh language. His predecessor in the Conservative Party set up a non-statutory council for the Welsh language for that purpose.

Mr. Raison: I take the Attorney-General's point about financial restraints. They affect most actions of Government. But in this case, if one reads the clause literally—and I assume that clauses are meant to be read literally—the Assembly can do anything that it considers appropriate to support the Welsh language.
Let us suppose that the Assembly decided that only the Welsh language could be taught in Welsh schools. Undoubtedly that would give great support to the Welsh language. It would not necessarily cost any more money. I cannot see that there would be any overwhelming financial restraint on that. Is the Attorney-General saying that that kind of power would be available to the Assembly?
It seems to me that we have returned to the argument that occupied the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Parliament was trying to restrain the Executive. I thought that, on the whole, it met with a measure of success. But if the Government can do anything that they consider appropriate for all sorts of purposes, I wonder what parliamentary power adds up to.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member must not mislead the House. I am sure that that is not his intention. As is well known, any of these prerogative powers is subject to the provisions of legislation passed by Parliament. Where there is not a restrictive provision these powers exist.

Mr. Raison: That does not relieve my anxieties although it may well be an accurate statement.
At this time we cannot open up a debate on the whole of Clause 11, but would the Attorney-General, with his right hon. and hon. Friends, be prepared at least to have another look at the clause and consider whether this enormous and sweeping power is appropriate? Could the Attorney-General say that he will think about it, without necessarily undertaking to change the provision? He said that he normally rises to his feet in response to such requests. Perhaps I can tempt him to his feet.
I see that the Attorney-General suddenly has become shy on this matter. I hope that he will consider the matter seriously. It might be a question of impressions, but impressions are important in politics. I hope that he and his colleagues will think about this.
I said at the beginning that I thought that this would be an important debate. It has proved to be important. We can say that fairly and with due modesty. I am pleased at and grateful for the response of the Attorney-General to my amendment. By and large, concessions have been wrung from the Government in the Division Lobbies during the course of the devolution Bills. However, the Attorney-General has responded in a generous and sympathetic manner to my suggestion.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hooson: As I listened to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) I reflected whether it was possible to have a hostile tribe of one. I came to the conclusion that it was. In his opposition to the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales for 40 days and 40 nights without stopping, the hon. Member really has



established himself. I was reminded of an old Welsh poem "Y Gododdin", which is said to date from the sixth or seventh century. It is about a visit of a Welsh tribe to Strathclyde, and refers to the sole survivor who came back to Wales from Scotland. The hon. Member has been the sole survivor of the Scottish opposition to the Welsh Bill.
The Attorney-General should attend these debates more often. This is the first true debate that we have had on a section of the Bill, in the sense that there has been a constructive effort to improve the Bill and a reaction from the Government to it. Apart from that, we have had a repetition of Second Reading speeches.
The Attorney-General is absolutely right in his approach. I wondered how he would object to the constructive argument made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) yesterday on this matter. I wondered whether he would reject it. I was pleased to hear his reply.
I turn to the third power which is involved in the amendment presented by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). The Attorney-General rightly said that he objected to the proposition that the court should make an affirmative mandatory order to the Welsh Assembly. The reason for this is fairly obvious. It is that of course the Assembly cannot be exactly parallel to the Minister but its powers are derived from those which are enjoyed by the Secretary of State. This is the practical approach to the problem. Purist approaches on this type of Bill do not help.

I believe that we shall gradually move nearer a constitutional court but that we are nowhere near it yet. If the hon. Member for West Lothian was alarmed when the Law Lords divided three to two yesterday, he should study the matter to see how often they make decisions that become the law of this country by a majority of three to two. I am not alarmed about that.

Under the present arrangements the House of Commons should be able to order the Assembly to fulfil its duty on a political basis. If the court makes a declaration the House of Commons has the power to insist that the Assembly carries out its duties. That is how it should be.

I believe that we are on a course that will evolve and eventually lead us in the direction of a written constitution of federal powers, and of a constitutional court. But that is yet in the distance. On the basis of what has happened today I think that the Attorney-General's approach was absolutely right. He was right to concede the first two points and to resist the third.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Attorney-General—

It being Five o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 12.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Five o'clock.

Clause 73

CONFIRMATION BY HOUSE OF COMMONS OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY IT BUT NOT BY HOUSE OF LORDS

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 222.

Division No. 176]
AYES
[5.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davidson, Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Ernest
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Ashley, Jack
Canavan, Dennis
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carmichael, Neil
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dempsey, James


Barnett Guy (Greenwich)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dewar, Donald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Clemitson, Ivor
Doig, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, J. D.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Coleman, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Dunn, James A.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Eadie, Alex


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Corbett, Robin
Edge, Geoff


Boardman, H.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
English, Michael


Botttomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cronin, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Evans, John (Newton)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cryer, Bob
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Buchanan, Richard
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Faulds, Andrew




Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sever, John


Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McElhone, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ford, Ben
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Julius


Freud, Clement
Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Gilbert, Dr John
Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stallard, A. W.


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stoddart, David


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Grocott, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Horam, John
Moyle, Roland
Tierney, Sydney


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tinn, James


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Noble, Mike
Tomlinson, John


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Tuck, Raphael


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Padley, Walter
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Janner, Greville
Pardoe, John
Ward, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George
Watkins, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John
Watkinson, John


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert
Weitzman, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Penhaligon, David
Welibeloved, James


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Woodall, Alec


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rooker, J. W.
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Litterick, Tom
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)



Luard, Evan
Rowlands, Ted
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ryman, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Alf Bates.




NOES


Crawford, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Douglas
Watt, Hamish
Mrs. Margaret Bain and


MacCormick, Iain
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Reid, George

Division No. 177]
AYES
[5.12 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McCartney, Hugh



Anderson, Donald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
McElhone, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Ashley, Jack
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkinson, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ford, Ben
Madden, Max


Bates, Alf
Forrester, John
Magee, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Freud, Clement
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Boardman, H.

Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Molloy, William


Buchanan, Richard
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moonman, Eric


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Campbell, Ian
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Canavan, Dennis
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Noble, Mike


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Clemitson, Ivor
Henderson, Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John


Cohen, Stanley
Horam, John
Padley, Walter


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pardoe, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Park, George


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parker, John


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hunter, Adam
Penhaligon, David


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Crawford, Douglas
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Radice, Giles


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Reid, George


Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul B.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Ryman, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sever, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunn, James A.
Litterick, Tom
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Eadie, Alex
Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Edge, Geoff
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius







Skinner, Dennis
Thompson, George
White, James (Pollok)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)
Whitlock, William


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Tierney, Sydney
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Spearing, Nigel
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Spriggs, Leslie
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stallard, A. W.
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Stoddart, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Strang, Gavin
Ward, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Watkins, David
Woof, Robert


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkinson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Swain, Thomas
Watt, Hamish
Young, David (Bolton E)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Weitzman, David



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Ted Graham, and


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. James Tinn.


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
McCusker, H.


Aitken, Jonathan
Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Alison, Michael
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
MacGregor, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fox, Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Arnold, Tom
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fry Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Awdry, Daniel
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil


Baker, Kenneth
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mates, Michael


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Benyon, W.
Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Biffen, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon
Montgomery, Fergus


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grist, Ian
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grylls, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neave, Airey


Brooke, Peter
Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neubert, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow West)


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bulmer, Esmond
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, Richard (Workington)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heseltine, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hodgson, Robin
Percival, Ian


Channon, Faul
Holland, Philip
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Raison, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, Burnaby
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dunlop, John
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Durant, Tony




Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Nigel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Fell, Anthony
Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)







Shepherd, Colin
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wall, Patrick


Shersby, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walters, Dennis


Silvester, Fred
Stokes, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Sims, Roger
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John


Sinclair, Sir George
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Spence, John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Younger, Hon George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Sproat, Iain
Viggers, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wakeham, John
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Stanley, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

ORDERS

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 236, Noes 16.

Division No. 178]
AYES
[5.25 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Eadie, Alex
Lambie, David


Anderson, Donald
Edge, Geoff
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Litterick, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Loyden, Eddie


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (Newton)
Luard, Evan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Atkinson, Norman
Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bates, Alf
Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McElhone, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ford, Ben
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Boardman, H.
Freud, Clement
Maclennan, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Dr John
Madden, Max


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Buchanan, Richard
Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, George (Morpeth)

Maynard, Miss Joan


Campbell, Ian
Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, RI Hon Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Austin


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Molloy, William


Clemitson, Ivor
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moonman, Eric


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Horam, John
Moyle, Roland


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)



Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike


Cronin, John
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Janner, Greville
Ovenden, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, Walter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, John


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Park, George


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parker, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parry, Robert


Dempsey, James
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)




Robinson, Geoffrey

Stallard, A. W.
Ward, Michael


Roderick, Caerwyn
Steel, Rt Hon David
Watkins, David


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watkinson, John


Rooker, J. W.
Stoddart, David
Weitzman, David


Rose, Paul B.
Stott, Roger
Wellbeloved, James


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, James (Pollok)


Rowlands, Ted
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Ryman, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sever, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tierney, Sydney
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomlinson, John
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Skinner, Dennis
Tuck, Raphael
Young, David (Bolton E)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.



Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Snape, Peter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Spriggs, Leslie






NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Reid, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



Henderson, Douglas
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacCormick, Iain
Thompson, George
Mrs. Winifred Ewing and


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Douglas Crawford.


Molyneaux, James
Welsh, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 76 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clauses 79 and 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81

INTERPRETATION

Amendment No. 343 proposed: In page 31, line 31, after "1974", insert 'a Scottish Act.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 15.

Division No. 179]
AYES
[5.38 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Clemitson, Ivor
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashley, Jack
Coleman, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Faulds, Andrew


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Corbett, Robin
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bates, Alf
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Beith, A. J.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cryer, Bob
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davidson, Arthur
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Freud, Clement


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
George, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Deakins, Eric
Gilbert, Dr John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ginsburg, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dempsey, James
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dewar, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Doig, Peter
Graham, Ted


Buchanan, Richard
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Grant, John (Islington C)


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Canavan, Dennis
Dunn, James A.
Grocott, Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Carmichael, Neil
Edge, Geoff
Hardy, Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Harper, Joseph




Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Maynard, Miss Joan
Snape, Peter


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Horam, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Molloy, William
Stoddart, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moonman, Eric
Stott, Roger


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strang, Gavin


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Moyle, Roland
Swain, Thomas


Janner, Greville
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Noble, Mike
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ogdan, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Padley, Walter
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John
Tierney, Sydney


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Park, George
Tinn, James


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Parker, John
Tomlinson, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Judd, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tuck, Raphael


Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kelley, Richard
Radice, Giles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lambie, David
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ward, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkins, David


Litterick, Tom
Robinson, Geoffrey
Watkinson, John


Loyden, Eddie
Roderick, Caerwyn
Weitzman, David


Luard, Evan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wellbeloved, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rooker, J. W.
White, James (Pollok)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


McElhone, Frank
Royle, Sir Anthony
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ryman, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sever, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mackintosh, John P.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woodall, Alec


Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Woof, Robert


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Madden, Max
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)



Magee, Bryan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silverman, Julius
Mr. James Hamilton and


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Frank R. While.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)





NOES


Crawford, Douglas
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wigley, Dafydd


Dunlop, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Douglas
Watt, Hamish

Mrs. Margaret Bain and


MacCormick, Iain
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. George Reid


Molyneaux, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes 12.

Division No. 180]
AYES
[5.51 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Boardman, H.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Anderson, Donald
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cronin, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buchanan, Richard
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Atkinson, Norman
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ian
Davidson, Arthur


Bates, Alf
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)



Beith, A. J.
Carmichael, Nell
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clemitson, Ivor
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cohen, Stanley
Dewar, Donald




Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sedgemore, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sever, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Edge, Geoff
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Evans, John (Newton)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Snape, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Stoddart, David


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stott, Roger


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strang, Gavin


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Swain, Thomas


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, Austin
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
Tierney, Sydney


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Tomlinson, John


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hardy, Peter

Noble, Mike
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Horam, John
Ovenden, John
Watkins, David


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Padley, Walter
Watkinson, John


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pardoe, John
Weitzman, David


Hunter, Adam
Parker, John
Wellbeloved, James


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woodall, Alec


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Woof, Robert


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.



Judd, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Frank R. White and


Kelley, Richard
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John





NOES


Crawford, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Douglas
Watt, Hamish
Mrs. Margaret Bain and


MacCormick, Iain
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Reid, George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I seek to raise a point of order of which I have given you prior notice. It concerns a group of amendments to which we shall be coming later, namely, that group starting with Amendment No.

103, in Clause 83, and running through to Amendment No. 321 on the selection list. That group concerns the referendum and the way that it will affect Ministers.
Amendment No. 103 provides that if it appears to the Secretary of State that fewer than three-fifths of those voting in the referendum have voted "Yes", he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an order.
To that extent, the amendment—in this respect it is different from the terms of the Bill itself—is binding on a Minister of the Crown. Inasmuch as it is binding on a Minister, it is binding on Her Majesty the Queen, since the Minister is acting on behalf of the Queen.
I suggest that the amendment is out of order, in that the Nineteenth Edition of "Erskine May" indicates, on page 523, that amendments should be ruled out of order if they propose changes in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice. There is a footnote in which reference is made to what happened on 18th April 1972, when an amendment was selected on the basis specifically of having no binding effect on Government.
I put it to you that the amendments have a binding effect on the Minister and, therefore, on the Queen, and that to this extent they are creating a new parliamentary precedent which would have enormous consequences.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) for giving me prior notice of the point of order which he desired to raise.
During the proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill of last Session, I ruled that the Referendum Act of 1975 had largely destroyed the basis upon which the previous rulings had been given and that it could not now be held that a referendum, whether consultative or effective, represented a change in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice. Following this ruling, a new clause having a mandatory effect was moved to that Bill.
In the light of a certain motion which was subsequently put down in criticism of my ruling, Mr. Speaker was good enough to express his support for the action I had taken in terms which were accepted by the House, and the motion was not moved. The hon. Member will find the reference to this in Hansard of 30th March 1977, columns 538 and 539.
Since that date, an amendment to this Session's Scotland Bill, which contained a mandatory provision similar to that contained in the amendment to which the hon. Member has referred was moved, debated and inserted in the Bill. In the light of these developments, I have no hesitation

in ruling that the present amendment is in order.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that ruling, which clarifies the issues. May I raise two matters of further clarification in order to help us in our deliberations tonight and in any future sittings? In the light of what you have just said, Mr. Murton, is it your ruling that any amendment seeking to bind the House of Commons could be brought forward in any further proceedings on this Bill on Report or on other Bills which may come before the House, and can you say whether your ruling is based on the Scotland and Wales Bill ruling or on the Scotland Bill which is currently before Parliament?

The Chairman: I regret to inform the hon. Member that I am not prepared to give a ruling on a hypothetical question.

Clause 82

COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Geraint Howells: I beg to move Amendment No. 344, in page 32, line 16, leave out from "shall" to end of line 18, and insert
come into operation on 1st January 1979

The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 345, in page 32, line 17, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "Her Majesty in Council".
No. 319, in page 32, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
No. 352, in page 32, line 30, at end add
(5) Subject to the provisions of section 83 below, all orders under this section shall be made within 120 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and no such order shall appoint a day later than 1st January 1979 for the commencement of operation of any part of the Act.".
No. 320, in page 32, line 30, at end add
(5) Subject to the provisions of section 83(1) below, the first order under this section shall be made within 120 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent.".
No. 318, in Clause 83, page 32, line 33, after "held", insert
within 90 days of the Royal Assent to this Act".
No. 361, in page 32, line 34, at end insert
the referendum to be held on a day not later than 120 days after this Act receives the Royal Assent".

Mr. Howells: This group of amendments deals with the power of the Secretary of State under Clause 82 to appoint different days for the commencement of the provisions of the Act. The amendments have been tabled by the Liberal Party.
Amendment No. 344 is a probing amendment, but I have to warn the Committee that if I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply I shall press it to a Division.
In my view, this clause is so widely drafted that it could be used by the Government of the day to hold up the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. No time limit is set for the making of the orders, nor is there a specified time by which the Act should come into force. It provides a great temptation to any Government who want to put off indefinitely the setting up of the Assembly.
We Liberals also question the need to use this mechanism to bring the Act into operation. As it is, some of its provisions are already dependent on the making of orders by the Secretary of State, such as the timing of the elections and the payment of the block grants.
My colleagues and I believe that the Assembly should be set up as soon as possible after the passing of the Act, and we should like to see elections for the Welsh Assembly held not later than June of next year. We are therefore proposing that the Act should come into force on 1st January 1979. We want to know why the Government believe that this clause is necessary. I am sure that the Minister will give a reasonable reply to my request.
Amendment No. 345 is a technical amendment seeking to transfer the order-making power in this clause from the Secretary of State to Her Majesty in Council. If these orders are intended to be mere formalities, the power of the Secretary of State to make orders falls into the group of quasi-constitutional functions that he is expected to carry out under the Bill. We feel that it is more appropriate for such functions to be carried out by the Queen in Council than by a political Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 319 would remove subsection (2) from the Bill and would thus remove the power of the Secretary of State to bring into operation different

parts of the Act at different times. We do not see why this power is necessary. It could be used by the Government to bring in only some parts of the Act and not others. For example, the Government could bring into force those sections dealing with the establishment of the Assembly but not those relating to the powers of the Assembly.
Amendment No. 352, which adds a new subsection to the clause, would require the Secretary of State for Wales to make all the orders under the clause within four months of the Act being passed and to ensure that the whole Act came into force by 1st January 1979. This is the same point as that raised by Amendment No. 344 but it gives the Secretary of State more flexibility by allowing him to specify different days for the commencement of different parts of the Act.
Amendment No. 361 would force the Secretary of State for Wales to appoint a day for the holding of the referendum. This must be a date not more than four months after the Act is passed. We feel that the referendum should be held as soon as possible after the Bill gets Royal Assent. As the Bill stands, the Government could hold up the referendum indefinitely. This would be particularly dangerous if there were a change of Government and the incoming Government were anti-devolution.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) is trying to write specific dates into the Bill—to state a date by which the Act must come into force and a date by which the referendum must be held. But has he taken account of the fact that there may well be a General Election? If he insists that the referendum be held 120 days after Royal Assent, assuming that a General Election could be held in October, the result could be that the referendum was held a week later than the General Election. Does he realise what his amendment could do?

Mr. Howells: I am not responsible for saying when a General Election should be called. That is up to the Prime Minister. If he is in favour of the Welsh Assembly, it is up to the Prime Minister. In case an incoming Government are against devolution, I believe, as a staunch devolutionist, that the referendum should be held this year, and the whole thing


should be finalised by the end of the year.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps I could help. The amendment of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) stipulates, in effect, that the referendum must be held by 1st January 1979. A week previous to that is Christmas Day, and not even the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) would suggest that a General Election would be held on Christmas Day. The amendment provides sufficient time for the referendum between the end of the parliamentary Session and 1st January, without any need for overlapping.

Mr. Howells: I agree. I hope that the referendum will be held this autumn and that the Welsh people will decide whether they want an Assembly. By January we will know one way or the other. In putting forward this amendment, I shall make it quite clear why I have mentioned 1st January.
The Act should come into operation as soon as possible, and that is why I have stipulated 1st January, which is both reasonable and possible. There has already been far too much delay over the years in bringing about devolution in this country. The aspirations of the Welsh people have been thwarted too often. To allow the matter to drag on indefinitely would be wrong for the people of Wales particularly and the people of Britain generally.
No one can possibly say that there has been no time for discussion. The Liberal Party has been advocating devolution for half a century, and thinking people over the years have considered the possibility. The Press and the media have given a tremendous amount of encouragement, and discussions following the Kilbrandon Report have been fruitful and interesting. The people of Wales are now anxious to decide the issue themselves through the promised referendum. It is a matter of principle that all these issues should be proceeded with with as much speed as possible to allay the anxieties and bring an end to the uncertainties. We have been waiting for 50 years. It is time to take swift action on behalf of the Welsh people. We need action, not words.
If the implementation of the Act is delayed beyond 1st January next year,

there are a number of consequences that must be considered. It must be remembered that the Wales Bill provides for a review of the structure of local government in Wales. We are only too familiar with the long catalogue of complaints that have arisen in the last few months, both from the public and from those involved in local government, following the disastrous reorganisation five years ago.
The Liberals have very definite ideas about the organisation of local government under the Welsh Assembly. The main aim is to bring back a sense of involvement and to encourage people to make a positive contribution to the area in which they live. The important factor is to bring about the review as quickly as possible in order to end uncertainty and ensure a solid and lasting structure for the future. If the Bill is delayed more than is necessary, it will be unfair to the officers and representatives involved in local government and can only cause further unrest and anxiety. For the health of local government in Wales, we must have action soon.
The same principle applies to other functions that will come under the Assembly. We have seen with considerable dismay the way in which health authorities, which also were reorganised in 1973, have been faced with tremendous difficulties as a result of the over-large areas they have had to administer. Most of the money has been spent on administration which became necessary only because of the reorganisation, instead of on medical staff. We should have been spending that money on medical staff, equipment and vital new buildings. As in the rest of the NHS, something needs to be done fast before the whole structure collapses under the weight of bureaucracy.
In the last couple of years, we have seen the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales in action and they have made great strides in the encouragement of industry in Wales. Their functions are vital for the health of the economy and the recovery of industry in Wales. These bodies also need a background of stability against which to work, and the sooner the Assembly is established the better it will be for them. They cannot be expected to work in a vacuum.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how these bodies will be able to work with any sense of stability when Clause 62 enables them to be wiped off the face of the earth by the Assembly?

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to wipe the Board and the Agency out of existence. If he wants to tell the people of Wales that he wishes to abolish these bodies, it is up to him. Perhaps it will be in his manifesto at the next General Election.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman cannot dodge the question by misquoting my views on the Agency, which we are pledged to retain, and the Board, which we think might be organised in a slightly different way. How can he say that uncertainty will be removed when Clause 62 enables these bodies to be wiped out?

Mr. Howells: I do not believe that the Assembly will wipe out the Board and the Agency—though a Tory Government might do so. If the hon. Gentleman is against the Board and the Agency, that is a matter for him.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill.

Mr. Howells: I have read the Bill and I know what I stand for. As a staunch devolutionist, I want to make sure that we devolve powers to the people of Wales so that they can look after their own interests in the way that Liberals and the Government believe they should.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman was speaking earlier about local government, which is one of the major issues of concern in Wales. Can he give us the Liberal Party's views on this matter? Will he recommend to the Assembly that the county and district authorities should be abolished, that local government should stay as it is, or what?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) has allowed his enthusiasm to carry him well away from the amendment.

Mr. Howells: Thank you for bringing us back to order, Mr. Murton.
I shall reply briefly to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). When the Bill was presented, the Government acceded

to the request of the Liberal Party that the Assembly should have the right in its first year of office to discuss the local government structure in Wales. It will be up to Assembly Members to report to the Secretary of State on whether they wish a futher reorganisation. The Liberal view is well known, and I do not think that I ought to elaborate on that now.

The Chairman: Order. May I suggest to the Committee that honours are now even all round?

Mr. Howells: Forestry, which was debated at length yesterday, is also to be the responsibility of the Assembly. As was stressed yesterday, there has been a great deal of uncertainty about the future role of the Forestry Commission and the national water authority. The great uncertainty that exists in every sphere must be brought to an end, and the longer we delay implementation of the Bill the worse it will be. Confidence will suffer and local government, health administration and so on will be in an even worse state than at present. This must be avoided at all costs.
It also crosses my mind that there are a number of non-elected bodies in Wales, such as those already mentioned. Their members have not been democratically elected and there is no democratic control over their activities. It is to be hoped that, with the coming of the Assembly, there will be some measure of control. That is another good reason for not having delays. However, I do not want a repeat of the exchanges that we have seen between the Secretary of State and the Shadow spokesman, so I shall leave the matter there for the time being.
The Bill is not ideal. It has many flaws, and Liberals wished to see many other provisions included in it, especially the whole issue of a federal system for the United Kingdom. However, it is of the utmost importance for the well-being of the country that some form of devolution should come into being in the near future.
I am delighted that some Conservatives are now coming over to my party's way of thinking. When we debated a federal system in the Welsh Grand Committee in November, I was pleased to hear the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and Barry (Sir R. Gower) say that they would prefer a federal system to what was proposed in the Bill which was before


the House in the last Session. Who knows, perhaps we shall have a federal system in this country within the next five or 10 years.
Many people have changed their views and I hope that the hon. Members for Pembroke and for Barry will do what they can to help Liberals to further the cause of federalism in future. The whole country is fed up with centralised government that is remote from the people. They want to feel that they run their own affairs and have some say in running the country and shaping their future. The present system is causing much frustration and anger, not least in Wales, and it is therefore our duty to put the question to the people of Wales and to sort out our priorities in the very near future.
6.30 p.m.
It should have crossed the minds of a few right hon, and hon. Members that it is within the bounds of possibility that a General Election will be held, for example, in June. At this moment I should not like to forecast the result of such an election. It is possible that there could be a change of Administration. How much more convenient and orderly it would be to have the Welsh Assembly sorted out well before that time in case there is a change of Government. It may be that the next Government will not be in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales.
If the people of Wales decide in the referendum in the autumn to vote for a Welsh Assembly, I should prefer to hold the elections to the Assembly at some time in June of next year. In that way, the people of Wales will know once and for all that there will be a Welsh Government to look after the interests of the Welsh people in the way that the Welsh people want to be governed.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), has taken us on a grand tour of Liberal policy on the various issues arising from the Bill. However, he has not spelt out specifically what the Liberals will recommend to the Assembly or their policy on the issues that the people of Wales will be considering.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we should have the referendum as soon as possible. I note that he nods his head in agreement. There were

those who thought that the best plan for Wales was a consultative referendum. We should have gone to the people of Wales to ascertain their wishes. In that way we would have had a clear indication of their wishes. We could then have deliberated in the House of Commons on the details of a devolution measure in full knowledge of the wishes of the people. I am glad that I carry the hon. Gentleman with me. It is to be regretted that we are putting the cart before the horse.
We are shaping a Bill before we know the will of the people. There is no one in the House of Commons who can predict with certainty what the people of Wales will decide. It is my belief that if the issue were put to the people in a consultative referendum they would say "No". However, that is only my opinion, and there are varying opinions. At the end of the day the people of Wales will decide. As I have said, it is to be regretted that Parliament has entered into a long discussion on the nuts and bolts of a measure bringing about so-called devolution for Wales when we do not know the wishes of the people.
The argument has gone away from the merits of the Bill. The real argument is whether the people of Wales want devolution. There are those who say that they want it and there are others who claim that they do not. It is a pity that we did not have a consultative referendum. If such a referendum had been employed, we should have known the will of the people. In the light of that, we could have acted accordingly.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), for example, may say that certain things have been said during elections by various parties and that that is a way of assessing the will of the people. I do not believe that to be the case. When dealing with a constitutional issue of this sort, it is important to have a consultative referendum.

Mr. Wigley: I shall not raise the point to which the hon. Gentleman referred, although it is a good idea to raise it later. The hon. Gentleman was saying that it is not certain whether the people of Wales will vote "Yes" or "No" in the referendum. Will he tell the Committee how he will vote in the referendum? Will he vote "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Evans: I have already said that I shall be voting "No" and campaigning for a "No" vote.
I said during discussion of the Scotland and Wales Bill and during our discussions on the Wales Bill that I believe in devolution. However, the form of devolution that is put forward in the Bill is not a satisfactory form for Britain as a whole. I have said that if we are to devolve powers from the House of Commons to bring them nearer to the people, we should do so on an all-Britain basis. The main purpose of the Bill, according to the Government, is to maintain the unity of the people of the United Kingdom. If devolution were to be on an all-Britain basis, that would be realised as we would be forming regional government for Wales, Scotland and England.
That form of regionalism and that alteration of the machinery of government would stand the test of time. It is my fear that the Bill will not meet that test. I am sure that that is why it has received the wholehearted support of the Welsh nationalists. Plaid Cymru Members take the view that we injure the chances of bringing about a change in the machinery of government if any alteration is made to the Bill. In that sense they seem to be terribly aroused.
For example, is the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) saying that he will tell the people of Wales to vote "No" in the refendum? Of course not. He will ask them to vote "Yes". The Welsh nationalists regard the Assembly as a launching pad for the separatist policies that they advance.

Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if each of the regions of England had identical provision to that contained in the Bill for Wales he would be happy, but that to the extent that it is being provided only for Wales he is not happy? Is that what he feels about the Bill? He says that he supports devolution but that the Bill does not contain the right type of devolution. Why is it that he has supported the Bill in the Government Lobby? Secondly, why has he not tabled amendments that would, as he sees it, improve the Bill?

Mr. Evans: I believe that there is an argument for devolving powers away from the House of Commons to bring them

nearer to the people. The form of devolution proposed by the Government is not that which was originally put forward by the Labour Party in Wales. That form of devolution was, in effect, a top-tier form of local government in Wales which would have other powers. It was proposed that there should be a unitary authority underneath. In that way there would have been an elected council for Wales and a group of district councils underneath. That was a sensible and realistic approach. What has happened since those proposals were put forward?
The previous Conservative Government reorganised local government. The present Government have sought to introduce changes while ignoring the fact that local government has been reorganised. Local government in Wales consists of 37 districts and eight counties. We have the Welsh Office, the Secretary of State and all the paraphernalia of Government.

The Chairman: I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) to the sidenote of the clause that we are discussing—"Commencement".

Mr. Evans: I was trying to answer the hon. Member for Caernarvon, Mr. Murton. I agree that I should return to the amendment.
The clause as it stands is better than it would be if amended. Surely the reason for the clause being vague is not that the Government do not want to be more specific but that legislation which flows from decisions of this place and another place is dependent upon the progress of measures in this place and another place. To write in a Bill of this nature a commencement date of 1st January 1979 is a terrible presumption. It is being said that this Parliament must aim at that date and must get the Bill through, even if it is inadequately discussed, simply to get it on the statute book by that time. I am sure that that is not in the mind of the hon. Member for Cardigan, but that is what his form of words would mean.
The hon. Gentleman says that what we need is action, not words, but before one gets the actions one must have the form of words. The important consideration is to arrive at the correct form of words so that one will not have incorrect actions.


I believe that the actions that would flow if the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardigan were carried would make the Bill worse than it now is.
The sad thing is that there are whole areas of the Bill which have not been debated. We must remember that we are dealing with a major constitutional issue. We are told that the House of Lords will examine the Bill through a microscope, but there are some clauses which hon. Members in this Committee have not even seen through a telescope. We have had no sight of them at all. Because of the mass of amendments tabled by the Welsh nationalists, we shall be denied an opportunity to debate fully the subject of the referendum.

Mr. Wigley: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Evans: If they intend to follow the actions which occurred earlier this evening, it looks as though, even before we reach 11 o'clock, the Welsh nationalists will vote on all their amendments.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may not have been in the Chamber when a statement was made earlier by the Government spokesman to the effect that the Government, by allowing time for it to be voted upon, were endorsing the amendment relating to a figure of 40 per cent. tabled by a small minority of anti-devolutionists on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Evans: That is completely incorrect. The Plaid Cymru "dirty tricks department", since it cannot now write letters to the BBC or the Western Mail, is trying to create the impression that it is the Government who are getting up to all the dirty tricks. All that the Government have done is to give that amendment the same right as they gave to consideration of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). An opportunity was given to a Labour Back-Bencher to table an amendment seeking to change the previous decision of Parliament on the 40 per cent. figure. Therefore, the issue of the 40 per cent. will come before Parliament twice.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): It is important that I should repeat the Government's position.

We said quite clearly that the Government do not endorse the 40 per cent. and that the Government will be asking their supporters to vote against that amendment. Nevertheless, we feel that the Committee has the right to come to a decision.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. It seems to me that the Minister is dealing with Clause 83.

Mr. Alec Jones: With due respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, the point was raised by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). They asked about the Government's attitude, and I thought it fair and proper that that attitude should be stated to the Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope that for the rest of the debate hon. Members will confine their attention to the amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Cardigan made lengthy reference, Mr. Godman Irvine, before you came into the Chair, to the question of the referendum. Amendment No. 361, which is in the group that we are discussing, requires that the referendum should be held
on a day not later than 120 days after this Act receives the Royal Assent".
I was referring to that amendment as well as to the provisions concerning the commencement date.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I know that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) is not in favour of my amendment, but is he in favour of the principle of devolving power to the people of Wales?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Evans: I am a devolutionist, but I want to get the correct form of devolution. I do not believe that one would be pursuing the cause of devolution by threatening the existence of the county councils and the district councils, as could result from the setting up of a Welsh Assembly. It would mean moving local government from the county halls in Wales to Cardiff. That is devolving power not to the people but away from them It is the Liberal Members who will not say where they stand on this matter.

Mr. Wigley: The very proposal that the hon. Member espoused when he was a devolutionist in earlier years was a form of devolution which set up an all-Wales Council and a local government-type body. If that was not a centralisation of local government functions, what was it? Having advocated that, the hon. Member is going against the Bill, which has nothing to do with that principle.

Mr. Evans: That is a fair point. That was the idea earlier.
Let me say where I believe that the present policies have gone wrong. Instead of dealing with local government and devolved powers at the same time, the nationalists and the Liberals are now saying that they disagree with the present local government structure in Wales. I agree that there are features that need improving, but I want to avoid a system which, alongside the Assembly, would duplicate the present structure. It would be wrong to take such a course. If one wants to think in terms of a Council for Wales, by all means go ahead, but at the same time we must deal with local government. We cannot leave local government alone and bring above it this new form of bureaucracy—a spending body—which has not the power to raise finance.
I hope that we shall reject this group of amendments. I shall be brief because I wish to get on to the subject of the referendum. It is important that we should first know the wishes of the people of Wales. I believe that the timing of a referendum will have some bearing on the question of the date of a General Election. We do not know when that will be; it may be this year or next year. Because we do not know that date, it would be wrong to write into the Bill that it should get through by a certain date and that the referendum should be held by a certain date.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the people of Wales should be allowed to have their voice heard and take their decision and yet at the same time is rejecting a group of amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and of my hon. Friends and myself which would stipulate a definite date or timetable within a specific

number of days for a decision to be taken. I fail to see the logic of his argument.

Mr. Evans: I have tried to be logical. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the logic, I do not know who is to blame. I was saying that if you say specifically that on a certain date the Act is to be passed and that within 120 days of a certain date a referendum must be held, you are saying that you are almost naming the date when the referendum is to be held. Let us suppose, however, that the date to be named for the referendum is 1st March next year.

Mr. Geraint Howells: This year.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman says "This year", but even you in your amendments do not talk of a date of 1st January.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have made no such statement.

Mr. Evans: I am sorry, Mr. Godman Irvine. I meant to refer to the hon. Member for Cardigan. He does not say specifically when the referendum should be.

Mr. Geraint Howells: This year.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman repeats the phrase "This year", but, if we should have a General Election at the end of this year, is the hon. Gentleman making the point that the referendum must be held on 1st October when we might have an election on 12th October? I suggest that we do not want a referendum in close proximity to a General Election.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) will agre with me that it is not my duty to say when a General Election will be called or when a referendum should be held. That decision is entirely up to the Prime Minister of the day. He happens to be Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party, so it is entirely for him to decide when a General Election and the referendum will be held.

Mr. Evans: I can see that we are not likely to agree on the sense of this whole thing. Of course we know that it is the Prime Minister who will decide the date, but the hon. Member is saying that he wants to stipulate a specific date. Is he


seeking to imply that the Prime Minister should not hold a General Election or be free to determine when to do so because he himself wants the referendum to be held on a certain date?

Mr. Howells: No.

Mr. Evans: It is very interesting to know that. We must try to find out when the Liberals think that a General Election should be held. It is one of the factors we must remember, and perhaps before we finish with the Bill we may know when it is likely to be. These amendments are completely impractical and I hope they will be overwhelmingly defeated. It is a difficult Bill, but I hope the people of Wales will say "No" to the final conception.
We should not compound the difficulties by trying to write definite dates into a measure, making it almost impossible to carry out the will of the House in giving the people of Wales the right, in the last analysis, to decide whether or not they want the Bill.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am glad to speak to the amendments presented by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and to stress two facts. One is that these amendments allow sufficient time for the Bill to go through all its stages. That, of course, includes a referendum, though I note that Amendment No. 344 leaves that question open. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman when he closes the debate will clarify that. Not only do the amendments leave sufficient time for the Bill to go through all its stages they also ensure that the time will not be extended interminably over an indefinite period. There must be time for the Bill to go through both Houses, but there must also be time for the referendum to be held, and that should not be held too late.
Since the referendum is a consultative one, it will be considered by the House again, in plenty of time for the Act to come into operation by the first day of 1979. When one considers that the Crowther Commission, the Royal Commission on the Constitution, later known as the Kilbrandon Commission, was set up in 1968, it must be agreed that this is reasonable. But for the referendum, an earlier date than that specified in the amendments might be possible.
It is no secret that many on the Government Benches were opposed to a referendum on this issue. The Common Market referendum was for them a one-off event not to be repeated. On the Conservative Benches, too, at the time of the Common Market referendum, great scorn was poured on the idea of a referendum as a device which derogated from the sovereignty of the House and from the status of Parliament itself. Now, however, in regard to the devolution of power from Whitehall and Westminster to Wales, they have become enthusiastic converts to the idea of a referendum. They are less enthusiastic now for the idea of the sovereignty of Parliament than for the idea of preventing the people of Wales enjoying any measure of control over their national affairs. That is true of some hon. Members of both parties. It is significant that no hon. Member of either party has moved an amendment to delete the proposal for a referendum.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman saying he is opposed to a referendum, since he is objecting to hon. Members on both sides of the House calling for a referendum? Why does he object to the Government agreeing to a referendum when he said earlier that he was in favour of it? Is he now against a referendum?

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I have made no objection to the Government agreeing to it. I called for a referendum when the hon. Member himself was proposing the idea of a referendum. I have long been a supporter of the idea of referendums. I remember the arguments that were deployed at the time of the Common Market referendum against the idea of it. Those arguments still have validity, but nothing is heard of them now. It is an open secret that the referendum on devolution was supported by many as giving another opportunity of defeating the very policy of devolving powers to the people of Wales. One concludes that this is the reason for general acceptance of this major change in constitutional practice.
A referendum needs time, and these amendments deal with this matter. It needs time to allow a campaign. It needs time to enlighten the people on what is a very complicated issue. It was because of the complicated nature of the issue before us that the hon. Member for


Caerphilly (Mr. Evans)—who, I am sorry to say, has now left the Chamber—opposed the Scotland and Wales (Referenda) Bill on 14th February 1969. I should like to quote his reasons for objecting to a referendum at that time. He said:
a referendum was far too blunt an instrument to measure accurately all the aspects of the situation in Wales, which is so highly fraught with emotionalism; secondly, that the electorate had insufficient access to information.
He concluded that
In Wales the referendum would become a miniature by-election accompanied by the high emotionalism of recent by-elections in Wales.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Did the hon. Gentleman tell my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) before he left the Chamber that he intended to make such extensive reference to him?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman was here a couple of minutes ago and I assumed that he would still be here when I was speaking.
The purpose of the earlier Bill was
to authorise referenda in Scotland and Wales to enable the Scottish and Welsh people respectively to indicate their views in regard to the future government of their country".
That was the Bill against which the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) voted. Now, he is very strongly in favour of a referendum. I spoke in favour of that Bill. I spoke in favour of a referendum and I voted in favour of a referendum, but the hon. Gentleman, who was then the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, voted against it. The hon. Member for Caerphilly not only voted against it but spoke against it as well. There were reasons why he objected. Those reasons have validity.
People do not grasp easily these constitutional issues which are very complicated. In arguing in favour of devolution, the hon. Member for Caerphilly in that debate had a number of interesting things to say. He said:
the urge to devolution is almost an instinctive reaction on the part of the individual, to protect himself from being depersonalised any further in a world of gigantic scientific and technological advances, so that, while distance is shrinking through the development of communications, he at the same time is made to feel more remote, more isolated, and inside

his own personality he is shrinking back into himself."—[Official Report, 14th February 1969; Vol. 777, c. 1776, 1778, 1775–76.]
This was why, he said, in Wales and Scotland devolution had become an important issue and why to ignore devolution would be such a dangerous act of folly. That was the opinion of the hon. Gentleman at that time, and it must be said that he had very strong reasons for supporting devolution. I sympathise very strongly with those reasons.
The hon. Gentleman was putting forward a valid and very strong argument, but one does not hear such arguments being advanced now. It is the kind of argument that people cannot assimilate easily and quickly. If an appeal like this is made to reason, time must be given for people to understand it and the arguments must be set out clearly and often. The Bill therefore should give enough time. The amendments give enough time. Although they do not extend it interminably, they give enough time for people to understand the arguments and for the arguments to be set out and debated not only in the Press but in all the media. That is essential. That is why the consultative referendum that the hon. Member for Aberdare was arguing for would be nonsense.
The issue is so complicated that people would not understand what was before them. Now, at least the matter will have been debated for a long time by the House of Commons, and many people will have followed the arguments and be much more aware of them. Therefore, after the campaign they should be well versed in the subject. That is what we favour.
7.0 p.m.
We know that sometimes only a few people turn out to vote in a referendum. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), in the debate on the referenda Bill in 1969, said that the experience of referenda in general showed that only a small percentage of the electorate voted. He said, for example, that only 29·8 per cent. voted upon whether to open pubs in Wales on the Sabbath. This cannot be the will of the people. The hon. Gentleman was arguing against referenda on the ground that only a small number turned out to vote. We know that that is often true, and that is one reason why the 40 per cent. demand is so unreasonable.

Mr. Wigley: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that if the 40 per cent. rule had applied to the referendum on the question of the opening of pubs on Sundays not one pub would have opened on Sundays in Wales?

Mr. Evans: Yes, I am sure that that would have been the case. The issue that we are dealing with now affects not only Wales; it applies to Scotland and to England, as the opening of public houses on Sunday did not.
When the right hon. Member for Cambridgshire (Mr. Pym) was leading for the Opposition on the Scotland Bill, he said that the chief reason for opposing it was its adverse effect on England. The Wales Bill has some effect on England, and therefore any debate on this issue should take place in Wales and Scotland, and on television in Wales and Scotland, and should also take place in London, and a great many programmes on this subject should be put out from London. It is an open question whether that will happen, but the Government should insist on it. Indeed, because the matter is so complicated, the Government should consider issuing a publication to all homes in Wales and Scotland setting out the arguments for and against. That would help people to understand the complicated issues. All this requires time. Radio and television programmes require time, and that time should be fairly shared between both sides. There must be fairness in the campaign on the referendum when it comes.
My fear is that the wealth will be on the other side, on the Conservative side, among the industrialists, the people of commerce and big business. They will pour their tens of thousands of pounds into the campaign against any devolution of power to the people of Wales and Scotland. Where will the money come from for those who support the case for giving the people of Wales and Scotland power? There may be unfairness here and we should all be aware of this, including the Government. Everything possible should be done to ensure a big turn-out. That is essential if we are to win our case in Wales, and the 40 per cent. rule would make that almost impossible, bearing in mind what has happened on past referendums.
Time is especially necessary if more than one question is put before the people. The Government say that there will be only one question—whether the voter is for or against the Bill as it has been debated in the House of Commons and, I hope, passed. Wales is a nation and, therefore, the people of Wales should have the opportunity in a referendum of saying whether they are in favour of full national status, full national freedom, as well as in favour of this mild measure of devolution which the Government propose. If that is to be done, even more time is necessary.
A great deal of time was allowed for the Common Market referendum. The 1974 Labour General Election manifesto said:
A Labour Government pledges that within 12 months of this election we will give the British people the final say which will be binding on the Government on whether we accept the terms and stay in or reject the terms and come out.
Twelve months was allowed there. This referendum is different because it is consultative and will come back to Parliament.
At the time of the Common Market referendum, the Prime Minister of the day stated that he had always said that we could not possibly take this country into the Common Market if the majority of the people were against it. The devolution referendum is to be handled through the parliamentary system. On the previous occasion, it was a matter of a clear majority either for or against, and that should be the method in our referendums in Wales and Scotland.
There must not be too great a lapse of time between the passing of the Act and the referendum; otherwise, boredom will set in and smother the interest aroused by the campaign. That is why I support Amendment No. 344 which requires the provisions of the Bill to come into operation on 1st January 1979. That allows plenty of time for the holding of the referendum and for the taking of all the other necessary steps to establish the Assembly in Wales.
If the Scotland and Wales Bill had gone through, the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies would now be established and in operation. As the hon. Member for Cardigan said, we have waited long


enough in all conscience. We have waited since the end of the last century, and we are still waiting. Both major parties—the Liberal Party when it was a major party and the Labour Party—for the greater part of their history have been in favour of this kind of devolution and of parliamentary self-government for Wales. A time limit must be set, as it is set in Amendments Nos. 318 and 320. It is important that there should be a time limit.
Should there be a change of Government, we shall look for an assurance—which I hope will be forthcoming from the Opposition Front Bench—that the will of the people of Wales will be implemented if they vote in favour of the Assembly. I shall listen with great interest to hear whether that assurance is given tonight.

Mr. Alec Jones: I rise now because the Government's explanation on the amendment might be acceptable to the Committee and, if that were so, there would be a reasonable chance of Amendment No. 325—which has attracted considerable interest from both sides of the Committee—being discussed. I am making no attempt to curtail the debate or prevent hon. Members from taking part in it.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) described Amendment No. 344 as a probing amendment. No one can deny that he probed deeply and widely. The objective of the hon. Gentleman and of the other hon. Members who have spoken is the same as mine, namely, that we want the referendum, we want the election and we want the transfer of functions to be carried out as soon as possible and as soon as practicable. At the same time, we must ensure that the whole process, which is a novel one, is smoothly and effectively carried out, so that the Assembly will have a fair wind when it begins to take over its responsibilities.
That is the first reason why we object to fixing rigid dates, which would be far too inflexible. They do not take into account a variety of factors which need to be taken into account, the progress of parliamentary General Elections, and a whole range of issues.
Some of the amendments are contradictory, but they fall into groups. Amendments Nos. 344 and 319 ensure that all

the provisions are brought into operation on the same day. I tell the hon. Member for Cardigan that it would be impossible to bring all the provisions into effect on the same day-1st January 1979 or any other day. I hope to convince him of that.
The reason for this is clear. Once the referendum has been held arrangements will have to be made for the Assembly elections. The provisions that relate to those elections will have to be brought into effect but the functions cannot be transferred to a non-existent body. They cannot be transferred until the Assembly has been established. Stages are involved. It is not possible to bring in all the provisions at one go.
Amendment No. 352 provides for a short transition period ending on 1st January 1979. Our view is that this date is unrealistic. Throughout his speech the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) repeated the phrase "time must be allowed". He was asking the Committee to accept amendments that were contrary to much of the thinking behind his speech. I apologise to the hon. Member if I have misunderstood him, but he used the phrase on several occasions.
That is my plea. Time must be allowed. I want the transition period to be as short as possible, but it must be long enough to ensure that the arrangements work smoothly. It is not possible for a newly-elected Assembly to assume responsibility for all the functions that it will administer within a matter of days or weeks.
The Government's intention is that the Assembly should assume executive functions as soon as it feels ready to do so. The intention is that there should be a main appointed day on which the majority of functions are transferred. It is most important that the transfer should operate smoothly, without disrupting the provision of any of the public services. If public services were upset the public would be inconvenienced. There might be a strike, or the impending introduction of some new important statutory provisions. That might make it expedient and acceptable for the Assembly to delay the transfer of certain powers. Apart from any special case the Assembly will wish certain powers relating to its own internal arrangements to commence on the main appointed day.
It will have to appoint committees under Clause 19, appoint staff, and pay salaries and allowances to its Members. If it is to pay staff and its Members it will have to set up a Consolidated Fund, obtain a block grant from the Secretary of State and establish appropriate accounting arrangements. All these steps will require that the coming into operation of the relevant sections of the measure is selective, in some cases for limited purposes only.
The process of implementation will be complex and delicate. It could not be concluded by 1st January 1979. The Government intend to work out a timetable in consultation with the Assembly when it has been elected.
Hon. Members referred to the timing to the referendum. This is the subject of Amendments Nos. 318, 320 and 361. We believe that it is unrealistic to lay down in the Bill time limits by which the referendum must be held and the first commencement order made. We have maintained this position constantly. We have said that it would be nonsense if this timetable were fixed rigidly into the Bill. We are convinced and satisfied that as a Government we can meet the requirements of these amendments. I am not opposing them from that point of view. I am opposing the writing of fixed rigid times into the Bill. This could turn out to be a pointless exercise, because there can be no absolute advance assurance of the date when the legislation will be enacted. No one can give that guarantee.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: I note the intentions that the Minister and his colleagues have. He hopes that he will meet the timetable. But there is a possibility that a General Election will take place, and the slightly less likely possibility that instead of his being on the Government Front Bench with his colleagues, those who are more hostile to this concept will be there. They may not have the motivation to keep to the timetable. Does the Minister not believe that there is, therefore, a need to protect what he is trying to do?

Mr. Jones: I see the hon. Member's fear. I do not hold that fear. I do not believe that the Conservatives have a snowball's chance of winning the next election. But that is a matter of opinion. To choose the date of January 1979

would tie us into such a straitjacket that the practical complications would make it impossible for the Assembly to take over all the functions in one go. We must go through the stages.
First, we must have a referendum. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen said, time is of the essence in that. We then have to set up the machinery for the elections, the administration of the Assembly and the provision of finance before the Assembly is in a fit state to take over.
If we said that we could give this absolute guarantee so that we could accept writing a timetable into the Bill we should be misleading the Committee and doing a disservice to the Welsh people. Even a small change in the date of the enactment of the Bill could be significant in the holding of the referendum. There are other constraints. There are constraints involving not only General Elections but holidays, and even the weather plays a part. Those factors and others must be taken into account.
For those reasons we are unable to accept Amendments Nos. 318, 320 and 361. We aim to meet the timetable that is envisaged in those amendments. We believe that that is possible. But we cannot accept that it should be written into the Bill because we should be tied and have no flexibility.
I turn to Amendment No. 345, in the name of the hon. Member for Cardigan. This provides that the commencement should be by Order in Council. The effect will be the same whether the commencement order is made by Her Majesty in Council or by the Secretary of State. It would be unusual, although not unprecedented, to bring an Act into effect by Order in Council. Despite the importance of the subject the Government feel that it would be inappropriate to use the ceremonial procedure. We are talking not of one commencement order but of a number of such orders. Some of the later orders would be of no great significance. For that reason we feel that it is better to retain the provisions in the Bill.
The Government's case is that they want the referendum, the elections and the transfer of functions as soon as is physically possible to ensure that the Assembly gets off to a fine start. If we


were tied by writing a timetable into the Bill we should be undertaking an obligation which no one could guarantee to fulfil. I do not think that that would be honest.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The Minister has been helpful by intervening at this stage of the debate. It is helpful to have the Government response now. But the Minister is not making provision for potential political disasters. I agree that it would be a disaster if the present Opposition sat on the Government Benches. Is not the intention of ensuring that the process takes place by Order in Council rather than by the Secretary of State an attempt to introduce a degree of objectivity and some statutory basis which would remove it from the influence of the strong opposition of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) should he, by some disaster, end up in the Welsh Office?

Mr. Jones: I approach these matters with a much more simplistic attitude. I cannot conceive of the possibility that the Conservatives will return to power. If one adopts that simple approach to life, these complicated problems will not arise. I see that that view is not shared by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). His baptism was in Rhondda, when he fought the Rhondda, West constituency many years ago. The argument that the hon. Member advances is a possibility for those who think along different lines from myself. But any incoming Government can change the legislation of the outgoing Government, so whatever is written into the Bill, if a different incoming Government did not agree with our Bill they could do just the sort of thing that the hon. Member fears.
The Committee would therefore be well advised to leave this matter as it is, thus giving the Government the right degree of flexibility. I urge hon. Members to bear in mind the promise that the Government share the aims and objectives behind these amendments.

Sir Raymond Gower: I hope that the Minister will not be embarrassed if I say that I largely agree with him. I accept that it would be extremely difficult for any Administration to be bound by the restrictions that the hon. Member for

Cardigan (Mr. Howells) intends. I accept that his motives spring from enthusiasm, and I do not blame him for that. However, when he said that he wanted action not words, his enthusiasm was tending to run away with his judgment. I hope that in view of what the Minister said he will feel obliged to change his mind.
To impose the duty that this enactment should be completed by the first day of next year is imposing a narrow timetable. The Minister referred to the desirability of the Government's having a certain amount of elbow room in these matters, and that is a valid argument.
In moving the amendment, the hon. Member said that the Government should not have the power to delay. He repeated this later, when he dealt with the question of the referendum. He frightened me with some of his reasons why these matters were so urgent. He said that it was urgent that the Assembly should be set up and that there should be a referendum at the earliest possible date, so that the Assembly should have an early chance of getting to terms with the examination of local government. I should have thought that the Assembly would be the least suitable body to undertake such a task. In the past we have relied upon the considered judgments of bodies such as commissions, the members of which have been eminent persons in this subject—

Mr. Wigley: And a right mess they have made.

Sir R. Gower: There is no evidence to show that either of these bodies made a mess. I am sure that the hon. Member has not read the Maud and Wheatley Commission Reports—if he has, he is a marvel. Those bodies were far better equipped to come to balanced impartial judgments on such matters as this than an Assembly which has just been elected in the heat and fury of a recent campaign.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I do not want to go back over old ground, but since the hon. Member has mentioned local government and has compared what the Assembly could do in this area with what was done by certain Royal Commissions, may I ask whether he is suggesting that a democratic body elected by and representing the people of Wales, many of the


Members of which will have had experience as elected members of local government, is less capable than Royal Commissions of dealing immediately with the structure of local government? I include in that not only the present services administered by district and county councils but the services of area health authorities and of the other nominated bodies which are to be answerable to the Assembly. Is the hon. Member saying that such a body as the Assembly is less capable of doing that than are the non-elected bodies and the Royal Commissions which have studied the subject from a centralist Whitehall viewpoint in the past?

Sir R. Gower: I did not say that the Assembly would be less capable of doing it, but it would be less likely to do it in an impartial way. In a sense, it will be a rival body. One of the objectives of some of its members will be to destroy parts of local government. I have spoken to people in local government who are most anxious about this. The hon. Gentleman wants this body, which will be elected in the fury of a new venture, to embark upon an examination of local government which was so recently altered and which needs more than anything else time to settle down.
I expect that the hon. Member receives the local government journal that is circulated to many hon. Members. If he read that regularly, he would know that further change is the last thing that is needed. A great deal of nonsense is spoken about the deficiencies of local government. The results of inflation are blamed on those so-called deficiencies. But local government in any form would have suffered severely from inflation in the last few years, just like every other activity in the country.
The hon. Gentleman frightened me also when he said that the Assembly needed to deal with the health authorities. That is a very difficult task to put before a new body which will not have had the chance to show its quality. Why should it immediately turn its attention to examining the so-called defects of the health authorities? Certainly they have their great problems, and there is perhaps room for a fresh look at their areas, but it would be absurd to expect the new Assembly to do that immediately.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of dealing with non-elected bodies. Perhaps some of them need looking at, but the other two examples that he gave were very bad. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), who is not here at the moment, said repeatedly that the Assembly would have formidable tasks to perform. Many things would have to be done before it was set up. He argued most effectively in favour of not having a date written into the Bill.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: My hon. Friend is temporarily absent, but while he is away perhaps I should explain that the lion. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and the Minister were confusing two different parts of the argument. One part related to the commencement date and the other to the referendum date. My hon. Friend was pressing for having enough time for the referendum. He was pointing out the problem of finding sufficient air time and resources to conduct a full debate in Wales. The hon. Member was misconstruing my hon. Friend's point when he referred to the need for there to be enough time.

7.30 p.m.

Sir R. Gower: The hon. Member for Cardigan also suggested that the odds would be against those who were fighting the case for devolution. I should have thought that the resources of the Government—the governing party, anyhow—would be in favour of this campaign. Obviously, the Government are supporting this campaign. It may be that those who are anxious about devolution will be much more sadly handicapped in financing the work of the—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The CBI.

Sir R. Gower: I cannot speak for any such body. It may be that they will be much more hampered if the official resources are put into this campaign.
I fear that the hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him in seeking speed will be sacrificing efficiency. They will be simply achieving a wording in the Bill which, as the Minister says, could be thwarted by events. It would also place a Government in great difficulty on the question of General Elections, as hinted by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). As it is, there are periods of the year when a General Election cannot easily be held. Holding an election


in the very middle of the winter or near to Christmas is, I suppose, not practicable. There is difficulty in holding it anywhere near the time of the Budget. There is part of the year that is occupied by local elections.
If there is a time when the Bill must be put into operation and when a referendum must be held, one will reduce the freedom of choice for the holding of a General Election. It can be argued that the right of a Prime Minister or of an Administration to choose the date of a General Election is one that we could well do without. But it cannot be achieved in the ambit of a Bill of this character. That is an additional reason why it would be objectionable to pass these amendments which, though pleaded and moved with great enthusiasm by the hon. Gentleman, I feel would be unreal and should not be included in the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: I wish to address my remarks mainly to Amendments Nos. 319 and 320, which were responded to by the Government before we had put our case, although we have had an oportunity to intervene once or twice with some of the points that we wish to make.
Before I do that I shall refer to some of the points that have been made. The argument has been put forward that there should not be a fixed timetable or any limitations on the timetable for moving ahead with the implementation of parts of this Bill because that can be looked after by itself. I believe that there are very strong reasons why there should be these provisions. There can be nothing but continuing uncertainty if there is a lengthy delay after the Bill has received Royal Assent. Labour and Conservative Members have suggested that part of the Bill, if passed, would cause uncertainty. If that is so the continuing passing of time without the knowledge of whether the Bill will be implemented can only protract that uncertainty. If the argument is valid in that context, it is valid in the present context.
The argument should be that there is a definite time and that the people of Wales will know that there is a definite time, first, when the referendum is to take place and, secondly, when the implementation of the results of the referendum can be looked forward to. This

affects bodies other than local authorities, as constitutional bodies.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) referred to local authorities. The question also concerns individuals who work within local authorities. If there is to be a possibility, as suggested by Members of the Government as well as by those in other places, of flexibility for people who may be in local government now to work in the confines of the Assembly, these people will want to know whether such a possibility will come sooner or later.
There is every argument for providing a safety net in terms of time. Clause 82 is of enormous consequence. It provides the facility for the referendum. I question whether the referendum could take place if Clause 82 were not in the Bill. I should be glad to have a response to this matter later. Perhaps that is a matter for a "clause stand part" debate rather for this amendment. We are very much in favour of a straight referendum. We are not in favour of a loaded or rigged referendum with a 40 per cent. "Yes" vote. If, in consequence of the debates that we have had and the attention that has been given in the media to the question of the Assembly and its powers, a straight referendum can take place a reasonable period of time after it has been in the headlines the people of Wales will have a fair opportunity of forming their own judgment.
If time elapses and other questions get across in the meantime and there are new ways in which the provisions of the Bill or of the Act, as it then will be, are construed, people can fall into all sorts of traps, because they will not be absolutely certain of what Parliament has passed.
The argument put forward by the Government for having a referendum on a specific Bill as opposed to a general referendum on three or four different concepts has been that the people will know exactly on what they are voting. That must be an argument for having a referendum as soon as possible. I would like referendums to be binding. I am not sure whether the referendum that we are about to have will be a consultative one—my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) suggested this a few moments ago—or whether it is to be a binding


one, as suggested by the Chairman at the beginning of the debate.
The question seems to be very much in mid-air. I would like it to be binding. I believe that the concept of sovereignty, if it has any validity in this day and age, is a concept of power being transferred from the people to their representatives for a period of time. In a referendum we are passing that power back to the people for them to determine the matter. Having passed that power back to them, it is nonsense to say that we will then possibly not take into account what the people decide.
That is the real possibility that is facing us if we have a General Election and a Conservative Government are returned. The deafening silence that there has been tonight from the Conservative Front Bench has an ominous ring about it. If the Conservative Party comes to power after the Act has been passed but before a referendum takes place it may well play with the ideas to which it has previously made reference. It may call a Speaker's Conference. It may call for putting everything into the melting pot again and looking at the issue anew. If that is the case, although we will have passed the Bill, which will by then be an Act, nothing will come out of it. Everything will go back to square one and we shall start all over again.
If there is one thing that the people of Wales do not want, and which probably hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber do not want, it is a re-run next year of what we have had last year and this year—namely, considering the Welsh situation anew. But that is a very real likelihood if the lot on the Conservative Front Bench come to power and then consider the timetables and what they can do, and the loopholes that they can find in the laws that we have passed. That is the reason why we need to build into the Bill a time limit to prevent a Conservative Government avoiding the consequences of legislation that has been passed, and possibly the eventuality of its having been passed, and even a referendum having taken place, but then not being implemented in this Chamber and the Assembly not being set up.
Amendment No. 319 would delete subsection (2). The Minister has referred to this. He has referred to the need for different days for different purposes. This

leaves a massive loophole. A Conservative Government could choose to hold back certain functions, even certain parts of certain functions, under subsection (2), for their own purposes. They could choose to hold back the powers that they do not like, although the Bill has been passed by the House of Commons. In a referendum, if the result of the referendum is a "Yes" vote, as I think it will be, it will have been endorsed in entirety and not in part. There will not be any provisions for saying whether subsection (2) of Clause 21 or whatever should come into effect.
There will be a situation in which the whole thing has been endorsed, but the then Conservative Government could decide not to press ahead with certain parts of it because of the powers that are built in in subsection (2). That is why we suggest in Amendment No. 319 that we should omit subsection (2).
I believe that there are other ways in which the present Government or a future Government could find a means, if necessary, of overcoming timing difficulties for things such as funds and the other implications to which the Minister referred. Unless we do this, we are in danger of someone finding a method of sabotaging the whole Bill. Every provision could be brought in on a different date.
Not only is there the possibility of something being held back in entirety; there is also the uncertainty of the Assembly not knowing where it stands, because there is a real possibility—I should have thought that Labour Members would be very aware of this—that the Welsh Assembly will be dominated overwhelmingly, as our politics have been over the last 100 years, by parties other than the Conservative Party. There has not been a Conservative majority in Wales since 1868. For much of the time there has hardly been a Conservative Member at all from Wales. Back in 1905 that was the situation.
If that is the case, and if there is a Conservative Government at Westminster, we may very well see that Conservative Government playing ducks and drakes with the Assembly by holding back some of the critical clauses and subsections under powers provided by subsection (2).

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am rather concerned about my hon. Friend providing ideas for the Conservative Party should it return to office. I remind him that in the course of the debates on the Bill formidable arguments have been put forward by some Conservative Back Benchers against, for example, the transfer of education functions to the Assembly. Can my hon. Friend envisage a position in which a Conservative Secretary of State would not be prepared to transfer education powers to the Assembly for fear that the Assembly would use those powers in a way that would undermine policies that the Conservative Party might want to pursue in England? I am thinking particularly of the return of selection, which is advocated so much by a large section of the Conservative Party. A Conservative Secretary of State, by withholding the power for education to be transferred to the Assembly, could therefore ensure that selective policies which were being pursued in England might be pursued by certain local authorities within Wales, which would not, therefore, have the oversight of the Assembly in their education policies.
There are other areas of policy in which a Conservative Secretary of State could, by withholding powers in the way in which the Conservatives have been proposing in amendments to the Bill all along, ensure that policies that were totally against the democratic will of the Welsh people were implemented in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Yes, indeed. That is my very worry. It is a worry that items such as education could well be the No. 1 target on the Conservative shopping list in the unfortunate event of the Conservatives returning to power. It may be the first thing that they try to cut out. We cannot cut out the possibility that even though the Conservatives may feel themselves tied to having a referendum at some time in the future—and no doubt they will put that off for as long as they can; that would be their way of going about it—when they have a referendum on the Act, as the Bill will then be, the people may vote "Yes" because they want to see the opportunity for the Assembly to have oversight powers on education or whatever functions they are, only to find later that it has been a blank cheque and that, in fact, those powers will not

be passed over to the Assembly because of the powers in subsection (2).
I am looking not so much at the education possibility, although it is certainly a very real possibility, as at Clauses 38 to 40—the industrial and economic policy clauses. I know the attitude taken by the Conservative Party towards the Welsh Development Agency, and the hostile way in which the Conservatives have reacted to the WDA and have tried to stop it coming into existence and to stop £100 million coming into the Welsh economy. I know the way in which the Conservatives have reacted in more recent months to the Development Board for Rural Wales. I remember the assertion made from the Conservative Front Bench only a few weeks ago that the Conservatives would disband this when they came to power. In view of what was said a few moments ago, I am not sure whether the Conservatives are doing another of their somersaults on this issue. Perhaps they are.
I see the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) on the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps he would like to respond to this question and tell us whether it is the Conservatives' intention to do away with the Development Board for Rural Wales.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has never, to my knowledge, said that he would disband the Development Board for Rural Wales.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that assertion. However, a few moments ago the hon. Gentleman said that he would reorganise it. So we are left with the knowledge that the Board will not totally disappear but will be a different animal. We shall have to wait and see, I suppose, as we have to wait and see with so many other aspects of Conservative policy, particularly in relation to Wales.
This is the danger. We do not know where the Conservatives stand on this issue of the implementation of this part of the Bill. We have had no lead from them in this debate. We do not know where they stand in relation to the Assembly, or, if it comes into existence, whether they will cut out certain powers.


That is why we need to close the loophole in subsection (2). That is the rationale of Amendment No. 319.
Another possibility is that in the event of the Assembly being set up under a Conservative Government—I can foresee that the likelihood would be that that Conservative Government certainly would not set it up—they might not clearly indicate in their orders what would be the circumstances for elections subsequent to the first election. That is the sort of uncertainty that is allowed by the provisions of subsection (2), and it cannot be overcome unless there is some amendment—if not Amendment No. 319, some other amendment—to ensure that we do not give carte blanche for those hell-bent on frustrating the Assembly's effectiveness.
Amendment No. 320 deals with the first order under the Bill when it is an Act. Even if different parts are to apply at different times, the question arises when the first order itself may be moved. We need to ensure that there is no delay after Royal Assent. I suggest that even if the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 319, as was indicated by the Minister, because it may restrict the Government in certain directions, they should certainly consider accepting Amendment No. 320. I should have thought that that was an eminently reasonable amendment from their point of view.
Amendment No. 320 refers to the provisions of Clause 83, to which we shall be coming later, but the amendment has been coupled for debate with the group that we are discussing. Subsection (1) of that clause refers to the first order. We say that that should be made within 120 days of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent.
I should have thought that 120 days was more than adequate to provide for a referendum as envisaged in Clause 83(1). For instance, if the Royal Assent to the Bill were on 31st July, which may be a reasonable time to suppose that that might happen, it would allow the referendum to be held at any time up to the last week of November. That allows for there being an early General Election. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) mentioned the dangers of the two cutting across each other. If there is an early General Election in, say, the first or second week in October, which is a traditional time for holding General Elections,

it still allows a period of six weeks after a General Election in which to organise the referendum.
Equally, if there is a late General Election in November—as some commentators have suggested in the Press this week—there is equal facility for the referendum to be held on, perhaps, the last Thursday of September, with adequate campaigning time in September, after the holiday period.
A period of 120 days, as provided in the amendment, gives very real flexibility for the Government to avoid the ridiculous situation of a General Election cutting across the referendum. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdare in this context. I hope that he will support a later amendment that we have tabled in which we try to provide that the General Election and the referendum will not occur on the same day.
If, however, the Royal Assent is delayed, as could be the situation if certain hon. Members delay matters, and we do not obtain it until 31st October, that also gives a possibility of the referendum in a period of 120 days at some time up to the end of February. It allows the possibility of a referendum before or after Christmas. This gives flexibility, to avoid not only the festive season but the possibility of clashing with a General Education.
Any further delay than the 120 days suggests to us the intention, or at least the possibility in the minds of those in government, or those who may be in government then, to fix the time of the referendum to suit their own political purposes, with the Conservative Party fixing it at a time when it will maximise the "No" vote. We want to avoid this.
If the Government see the 120 days as reasonable, and a period within which they can work, which was the gist of the Minister's argument, why cannot they accept such a provision in the Bill?

Mr. Alec Jones: The simple answer is that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, no one can give now a firm date for when the Bill will become an Act. If Royal Assent is given on 31st July there will be certain consequences and if it is delayed until October there will be other consequences. It is because of that "if" that one cannot write that doubtful date into the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not sure that—with every respect to him, because this is very unusual—he has been following my argument. He is addressing what he said to the amendment of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), and I am speaking to Amendment No. 320, which gives a fixed period from Royal Assent. It does not stipulate a date. That gives flexibility and answers the points that the Minister rightly raised. It may be an argument against the fixed date that the hon. Member for Cardigan put forward, but the 120-day period overcomes those dangers and allows flexibility within a reasonable but fixed period.

Mr. Ioan Evans: But on the Scotland Bill an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was carried to provide that three months should elapse between a General Election and the referendum if the referendum should follow a General Election. The principle has been accepted by the Government. We shall later debate New Clause No. 1. Will not that be in conflict with the amendment?

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman may be absolutely right, and the real reason why the Government must oppose our Amendment No. 320 is that they have tied themselves down to seeking an unnecessary and bogus uniformity between this Bill and the Scotland Bill, when only a few months ago they stated that the circumstances in Wales were so different from those in Scotland that the Bills should be quite different in their content and their format. We suggest that they should also be different in terms of the rules for the referendum.
If there is a need for a three-month waiting time in the context of a Scottish election, with all its implications in terms of legislation which do not exist in this Bill, we see no reason why we should be tied to a similar period. We do not believe that the two things should happen on the same day. There should be adequate time for a separate campaign, which means that there should be a three-week or four-week interval between the two. But it is unnecessary to have a three-month interval. Three or four

weeks are adequately provided for in the amendment.
We on the Plaid Cymru Bench would be grateful to hear from the Government how they see the timing for the setting up of the Assembly in relation to the referendum. If, as is their intention, the Bill goes through between now and the end of this summer Session, will it lead to a referendum in the early aututmn? This is a reasonable time for the people of Wales—both those in favour of the proposals and those against—to look to so that they can gear their thinking and campaigning to a specific time schedule.
We know the arguments for flexibility in relation to a General Election date, although we may not accept them. We do not believe that the same flexibility is necessary. One does not have to hold back the date of the referendum as something up one's sleeve until the very last moment.
It would be reasonable for the Government now to make clear to the people of Wales and the people of Scotland when they foresee the referendum taking place, whether they foresee it taking place in a certain month later this year with what that would imply for the commencement date of the Welsh Assembly. People have to organise themselves in a way that facilitates their organising campaigns both for the referendum and for the elections to the Assembly.
I had also hoped that we would hear from those on the Tory Front Bench what they intend if and when the Conservatives come into office. Will they seek to frustrate the first order under the Act, or will they carry it out? I ask this particularly in view of their known opposition to this and the way in which some Conservative Members appear to be doing their best to make this a worse rather than a better measure.
We shall request a separate vote on Amendment No. 320, because we believe that it is the lowest common denominator in the argument. It gives flexibility, with a period that is acceptable to the Government, although they do not want to see it written into the Bill. We believe that the amendment should commend itself to hon. Members throughout the Committee.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I have felt compelled to join in the debate after listening to many of the arguments. It seems to me that my hon, Friends in Plaid Cymru were starting from the very right viewpoint that it was difficult and dangerous to trust to the political processes in the United Kingdom. After studying the clause, I find some of its proposals so lacking in precision as to be almost worthless. It is a long time since I have come across such a provision as subsection (2) for parliamentary gobbledegook. It says:
Different days may be appointed under this section for different provisions of this Act and for different purposes of the same provision.
One might as well say in clearer language that it gives the Minister and the Government complete discretion as to how they intend to proceed.
If there were trust that the Government of the day, whether Conservative or Labour, were in favour of this legislation or could be relied upon to continue in favour of it, we might be able to accept some of the assurances that have been given from the Government Front Bench tonight. However, those of us who have studied the way in which the provisions of the Scotland Bill, this Bill and the much-lamented Scotland and Wales Bill have been adulterated over a period and the way in which the assurances given at the preceding General Election have been weakened must have great distrust that the provisions of this Bill as they are now couched will be put into effect.
The argument advanced earlier by my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru was correct. They put the matter in the context of the Conservative Party's coming into power, although I have many more reservations about the fidelity of the Labour Party towards devolution than they may have. Here I am talking principally in terms of Scotland. Certainly, there must be many reservations about how the Conservative Party stands in relation to this Bill. At least, we know that the Leader of the Opposition has given a pledge that there will be a referendum in Scotland. I am not sure that a similar pledge has been given for Wales. If not, that would be shocking treatment of the Principality.
How could one treat Scotland and Wales differently? The right hon. Lady

has said on television that in Scotland she will go ahead with the referendum if she is in power and will see that the Bill is enacted. Apparently, in Wales there is simply silence. The Conservatives must do something to sort themselves out on this matter. Do they intend to remain quiet on whether they would proceed with the referendum on this Bill?
I know that in relation to the Scotland Bill certain Conservative Members have remained true to the mandate they received in the October 1974 General Election, when they said that they were in favour of an Assembly, although, regrettably, many have reneged on the attestation they gave to the electorate then.
8.0 p.m.
If I were a Welsh Member, I would put a number of questions to the Conservative Party as to where it stands in relation to the Bill. Will it follow through with the referendum? If so, will it accept it as the decision of the Welsh people? Will it go ahead with the transfer of powers if that referendum is positive, or, as has been suggested by my hon. Friends on the Plaid Cymru Bench, would it be the case that, when it came to the transfer of powers, those powers would not necessarily go to the Welsh Assembly although certain promises had been given?
I notice that the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is leaving the Chamber rather than give any assurance at all on behalf of the Conservative Party that there will be a Welsh referendum and that the Conservative Government of the day—if there should ever be such a creature—would honour that pledge. In the absence of such a pledge, I counsel my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru not to trust the Conservatives much further than one would trust a king cobra—recalling the recent story in the Press. I would say to my hon. Friends: trust them not, because their word cannot be honoured.
I put some stress on that, because at the time of the last General Election it was part of Conservative policy in Scotland that it was in favour of a Scottish Assembly, yet only too soon, after the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former Leader of the Opposition, had retired, we found that that


pledge was changed by a caucus inside the Scottish Conservative group of Members at the behest and on the orders of the right hon. Lady who is now Leader of the Opposition.
In looking at the amendments, I counsel my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru not to be beguiled by the honeyed words of the Minister about leaving it to the Government and that everything will then go well enough. We have left the devolution question to the Government, who had plenty of opportunities over the last four years to put it into effect. We have now reached almost the termination stage of this Parliament, if I may put it in that way, and only now is the Wales Bill before the Committee.
We have already seen that a pledge which was in the Government's manifesto—that they would introduce a Scotland and Wales Bill—was dropped. The Government could not even get support within their own party for a guillotine motion. We have also found that the referendum which we are now discussing appeared out of the blue. It is not as though the Government did not fight the last General Election on the basis of a Welsh Assembly which they would introduce without a referendum.
Clause 82 deals with the commencement of operation of the Bill. I have certain specific points to make concerning the amendments that we are discussing. Unfortunately, due to another meeting, I was unable to listen to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), but I know that the principle contained in his amendments is the same as that contained in the amendments of my hon. Friends. I have listened to certain of the arguments as to whether those amendments were rigid. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to vote on the Liberal amendments, and, indeed, on my hon. Friends' amendments if the hon. Gentleman is not successful.
Amendment No. 319 relates specifically to subsection (2) of Clause 82. As it stands, I fear that the clause is so badly drafted and so widely drafted as to be meaningless. Any clause which gives such wide discretion to a Minister of the Crown should be regarded by the Committee with a degree of suspicion, even if we were willing and able to accept that the Government of the day were

motivated with the proper spirit in regard to the Bill. There is no guarantee that there will not be a Conservative Government in office in a matter of three months, six months, nine months or a year hence. We just do not know. But it behoves us as parliamentarians to be careful and cautious about these matters, and certain specific provisions should be made.
The first of the amendments from my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru is Amendment No. 319, which seeks to remove the wide subsection which gives too much discretion and power to the Government. It seeks to provide a period of time in which the transfer of powers would take place. The Minister seemed to me to be extremely cautious and timid in relation to the speed at which he thought the Welsh Assembly would be enabled to take over the reins of power after the go-ahead had been given by the Welsh people. The Government have spelt out the powers which are to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, there should be very little delay in the Welsh Assembly having those powers given to it.
Indeed, the whole basis of the policy of devolution for both Scotland and Wales is that trust should be placed in the elected representatives who will serve in the two Assemblies. From the knowledge that I have of Scotland, I have no doubt that the quality of representatives of all parties in the Scottish Assembly will be very high. It would seem to me, therefore, that there is no reason why we should not, from the start, fix a period of time within which the transfer of powers should take effect.
I warmly commend Amendment No. 320, which has been presented and explained by my hon. Friends.
In view of the history of the devolution legislation, there can be no real trust in the promises which are made. I have been following the debates in another place about the Scottish Assembly. It was decided that there should be election to the Scottish Assembly on the basis of proportional representation. I approve of the change which has been made in that respect, and I am glad that the other place has acted in a proper spirit. I was surprised and shocked, however, to find that the House of Lords decided not to support proportional representation for the elections to the European Assembly.


It would appear that people are prepared, in whichever House or party, and whether in Government or in Opposition, to adopt whatever system they think best in order to prevent any real transfer of power to the Welsh Assembly or to the Scottish Assembly.
In my view, therefore, the best hope for the people of Wales would be to have a fixed statutory provision in the Bill concerning the amount of latitude and discretion to be given to the Government. The power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 82 should be restricted. The House of Commons should at this stage say that it does not have sufficient faith in either a Labour Government or a Conservative Government honouring the discretionary powers given in Clause 82. I believe that that ought to be the fundamental starting point—that there can be no faith in the promises of either the Labour Government or the Conservative Party that they will bring these provisions into effect. There must be a specific provision in the Bill for their enactment.
In his defence of the position, the Minister said that if there were a change of Government the Government of the day could change the legislation. The Minister is quite right in that regard. All too frequently, in matters such as pensions unnecessary changes in legislation have been made by an incoming Government. But it is much more difficult to repeal an Act of Parliament and to enact another measure in its place than to fail to make a start on the operation of discretionary powers. In the one case the Government, in order to bring in legislation, have to find parliamentary time.
In a new piece of legislation, the Government must decide what changes to make. They must work out the basic provisions in simple terms and then pass them over to the parliamentary draftsmen. It is occasionally very difficult to find time in the House of Commons for the reform of legislation. Only last Friday the Government were faced with the problem of finding time for the Protection of Children Bill, which came adrift at that stage. But it is very easy indeed in the second situation where the Government have executive powers entrusted to them by both Houses of Parliament. In that case there is no compulsion on the Government to exercise those executive powers and to carry out what was

intended at the time of promulgation of the legislation unless specific provision has been made.
The Minister can give assurances from the Dispatch Box. Indeed, the Conservative spokesman can also give assurances, although in this instance the Conservative Party has failed to give any at all. But those assurances are binding only in relation to the piece of legislation which is before Parliament. If the assurances are accepted, what is to happen, say, two or three years later when a change of policy takes place or there is a change of leader or a change of resolution at an annual conference of which Members of Parliament must have cognisance? In that case, the Minister of the day may well have to go back on the assurances. There ate all sorts of tricky ways in which these matters can be presented so that Ministers can say "The change which we proposed was not encompassed in the assurances that we gave earlier."
I counsel the Committee to be very chary indeed of accepting the blank cheque which it is asked by the Government to sign. There is no guarantee that that cheque would ever be presented or that the timetable for the provision of powers to the Welsh Assembly would ever be implemented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) referred to the referendum. In some ways, it seems to me, the Government have been following in the path of the Scotland Bill when they have come to accept certain changes. Of course, they have been trapped by the three months' rule, which has tied the hands of the Prime Minister and made it difficult for him to hold the referendum on the day of a General Election—which might save a lot of public money and get a full turn-out—or, alternatively, to hold it in the wake of a General Election. That is one reason why certain difficulties have arisen with regard to the timing of the referendum.
But if the Government, as they did in October 1974, went to the country on a clear mandate to get a Welsh Assembly going without any delay—and they have now taken four years to carry that provision into effect—they should be prepared to give primacy and urgency to the holding of the referendum. I suspect very much that the real reason why we have these difficulties is that the anti-devolution wing


of the Labour Party—which is very strong and influential, very anti-Scottish and anti-Welsh—realises that it can still put a block on this provision. There is no real interest in this Bill in the Cabinet, apart from perhaps the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House.
Other English Ministers have shown no interest at all. In the many speeches which have been delivered on this topic, I have not heard any enthusiasm with regard to the provisions of the Wales Bill.
If I had any doubt about whether the discretionary powers in Clause 82 would be misused, it would be the fact that the Conservative Opposition seem to be in cahoots with the Government. The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) indicated that he was largely in agreement with the Minister. When the anti-devolution Conservative Party is in agreement with the Government—and when that Opposition hope in time to become the Government and are deeply hostile to the whole concept of the Welsh Assembly—I indeed worry very much about the position.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us who have expressed reservations about this Bill are not anti-devolutionist? Speaking for myself and for at least some of my colleagues, I can say that we are perfectly prepared to accept that if the Scottish people or the Welsh people are so foolish as to wish to saddle themselves with Assemblies of this kind, it is right for them to do so. But we wish to be quite sure that there are enough of them who really wish to rush into this potential disaster before we go ahead with it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilson: I am glad that I tempted the hon. Gentleman into making that intervention. If ever an hon. Member declared that he was against the concept of devolution, I think that the hon. Gentleman has just done so. It is no surprise that the hon. Gentleman will later be presenting an amendment which would provide a barrier to the people of Wales deciding that they want an Assembly. It is he who is putting up this fence of 40 per cent. It is he who wants between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the Welsh people to vote for the Bill before its provi-

sions are enacted. He is well aware that there is no provision elsewhere in the world that I have been able to determine where a referendum result has been related to turn-out in the polls. In the main it is related to one vote over the 50 per cent.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Can I satisfy the hon. Gentleman on one point which seems to have caused him to lose sleep? That is, to give him the absolute assurance that the Government are not in cahoots with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann).

Mr. Wilson: I had understood that it was the intention of the Government to adopt the 40 per cent. amendment—at least, so it is rumoured.

Mr. Alec Jones: This is the second time tonight that I have come to my feet to make the same point. The Government are not in favour of the 40 per cent. rule. We said quite clearly when the statement was made that we would this evening be calling on those who support the Government to oppose the 40 per cent. amendment. But, nevertheless, we thought it right and proper that the Committee should have the opportunity of coming to a decision on the matter.

Mr. Wilson: I am glad to hear that the Government will not be moving the amendment which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). But I had some doubts on that score, because in the other place the Government indicated that they did not propose to displace the 40 per cent. provision as it applied to Scotland. If that is their amount of will-power with regard to this important question of principle, I have some doubts. If, however, I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, and the Government are at least neutral on the issue and will leave the matter to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, so be it.

Mr. Wigley: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are a large number of important amendments which regrettably, because of the way in which timetable motions are drawn up, have necessarily fallen by the wayside and have not been moved? Does he not feel it is


strange that of all these amendments, it is just the one which refers to the 40 per cent. barrier which the Government have seen fit to facilitate?

Mr. Wilson: I understood from the Minister that the Government did not intend to move that amendment.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am sorry to intervene again, but I think the hon. Gentleman is deliberately misunderstanding what I said. I said quite clearly that the Government would be calling upon their supporters to vote against the 40 per cent. rule but would, in fact, be seeking to give the Committee the opportunity of voting on it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State made this position quite clear. He said that, to enable the Committee to vote, a Government Minister would move that amendment if it were not reached in the normal course of events. Judging by the length of this discussion, it will never be reached.

Mr. Wilson: I am extremely surprised by the Minister's remarks. I am not surprised that he is hot under the collar. For a Minister who is presenting a Bill of this sort to say that the Government will enable such an undemocratic event to take place—and to give the anti-devolution elements the chance of mucking about with the Bill—only adds to my lack of faith in the present Government and their intentions.

Mr. Wigley: Is not my hon. Friend aware of why the Government have done this? A gun was held against their head by the rebels within their own party, who threatened to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill unless the Government conceded this point. They are hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill but who can be bribed by such provisions as the 40 per cent. barrier in order to prevent the desires of the Welsh people being brought to fruition.

Mr. Wilson: If that is so, it is quite shocking and it shows the lack of control which the Prime Minister has over his own party. When values like that are lowered in public life, there is little more that one can say except that the sooner we get out of this place the better.
I was about to terminate my remarks. I feel that Clause 82(2) is drawn so wide as to be quite meaningless. It should be

dropped, and I gladly advise my colleagues to support our friends in Plaid Cymru when both their amendments are pressed to Divisions.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, because I am extremely interested in a later group of amendments, but I think it essential to make two basic matters clear in this discussion. I do not intend to criticise the selection of amendments, but we are in some difficulty because the selection of amendments is such that amendments to both Clauses 82 and 83 have been grouped together. They refer to the coming into force of the Bill's provisions and the timing of the referendum. This has resulted in rather muddled debating in places. In my brief remarks, I hope not to confuse the two issues.
I intervene for two reasons. The first is that I do not consider that the response from the Minister has been adequate to meet our amendments. Secondly, on the vital issue of the coming into operation of the provisions of the Bill, we have had no intervention from the Opposition Front Bench. I shall give way willingly to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) if he wishes to explain whether his party has any view on the matter.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I have no intention of joining in the hon. Gentleman's filibustering. Is he aware that he and his hon. Friends are making it quite clear that they do not wish the Committee to reach the group of amendments dealing with the 40 per cent. rule?

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Member for Conway, and I am sorry about his insinuation that this debate on the coming into force of the total powers in the Bill and on the timing of the referendum can be construed as a filibuster on our part. I cannot imagine how he thinks that three members of a minority party can maintain a filibuster on an issue of this kind.
I am deeply concerned that we are here discussing what is, in effect, the most crucial clause in the Bill and that the response we have had so far from the Treasury Bench and the non-response from the Opposition Front Bench lead to the conclusion that we must press the amendments, although we may not want to do so.
The provisions in the Bill, which we have debated for nine days, would be totally undermined, because there is no time limit on their coming into operation and no specific date in the Bill for a referendum.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member fails to understand the position of the Conservative Party and its attitude to reform over many years. Invariably, Conservatives oppose reforms of this kind. However, when they come into being, the Conservative Party tends to claim them as its own. The National Health Service in Britain is a glaring example of this.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. It is true that the Conservatives claim credit for many changes after they have been seen to be successful. I have no doubt that they will take over the Welsh Development Agency as their own. However, I do not wish to be drawn further on that.
I want to stress my deep concern that all our deliberations in the Committee for nine days could be undermined by the return to office of a Conservative Government, which is a political eventuality that we have to take into account. The powers to be transferred to the new Asseembly could all be undermined by the devices of a Conservative Secretary of State in implementing the provisions of legislation passed by this House. That is why I am not satisfied with the Minister's response.
For a moment I was attracted when the Minister made his intervention and said that there were difficulties about transferring powers to an Assembly which had not been set up and that if certain powers were transferred on different days it would make matters administratively more simple. That is a seductive argument, but it cuts both ways. What could be administratively convenient for a Government who supported devolution could also be a convenient weapon in the hands of a Secretary of State who was not prepared to see the powers transferred.
I suggest that the time limit that the amendments provide for the transfer of powers is sufficient to allow for those transfers to take place smoothly and pro-

gressively over the period that we stipulate. We have stipulated carefully that we are not naming a date. We are naming a time span after Royal Assent. It means that within a period of 120 days it will be possible to organise the transfer of functions.
I fail to see how that is not a generous time limit for any planning of the transfer of functions, taking into account especially that this is an executive Assembly. It is not a legislative body that will have to set up complex structures for making legislation. It is an executive body, and we take the view that transferring powers to that body within a time limit of 120 days ensures that there is adequate time for the transfer of functions to take place.
I turn now to the timing of the referendum. Here again, I am deeply dissatisfied, and here again I think that we should press this amendment to a Division. We have had no assurance from the potential tenants of the Welsh Office about the timing of the referendum or, indeed, about whether they are prepared to allow a referendum on this issue should the political tragedy occur of their being returned to office.
It means that the people who campaigned for a referendum—members of the Conservative Party who were converted, apparently rapidly, to the need for a referendum on Welsh devolution, having opposed it as a general principle—are not prepared to say whether they will allow the people of Wales to take a decision on this matter at all. We are now faced with a situation in which, having spent eight days in Committee and having had a lengthy debate in Wales, the legislation may well be completed here, Royal Assent given and a General Election held which will return a Conservative Administration. That Administration could then destroy the whole concept of the Welsh Assembly.
8.30 p.m.
I want the Conservative Opposition to understand what it will mean in Wales if, by using these provisions, they delay the transfer of powers and do not hold a referendum. It will mean that there will be the kind of conflict between Cardiff and Westminster that they have envisaged in these debates. It will mean a deepening political divide between Wales and London. It will mean that


the people of Wales will not have had an opportunity to express their democratic wishes.
This amendment alone will place the force of statutory power on any Secretary of State to ensure that not only are the powers under this Act transferred to a Welsh Assembly in an orderly manner but that the obligation of a referendum is placed squarely on whoever is the incumbent of the Welsh Office for the next two years. That is the crucial issue.
We are not dealing with just any piece of legislation that can be left to the whims of Ministers; we are dealing with the transfer of powers to a national Assembly in Wales. If there is any attempt by the Conservative Opposition to prevent the Welsh people from expressing their point of view after 10 years' debate both inside and outside Parliament—and we must remember that this is the party that refused to give evidence to the Royal Commission on the Constitution—and if they ensure that a political vacuum will be retained in Wales and that the wishes of the Welsh people are frustrated because they are not prepared to hold a referendum, the result will be conflict. Until we have a response from the Conservative Front Bench we shall have no alternative but to force a Division.

Mr. Wigley: Surely the clarity of the Conservative voice on this issue is just the same as its clarity on all Welsh issues. The Conservatives do not speak on Welsh issues, not even on this particularly Welsh issue.

Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for elucidating the basic ideology of the Conservative Opposition in relation to Wales. I shall give them a final opportunity to make their point of view known. If they will not do so we shall press this amendment to a Division, so that the Welsh people will see that the Conservative Opposition are not prepared to allow their democratic wishes to be made known.
It is clear that by not stating that they are prepared to hold a referendum if returned to office, the Opposition are forcing us to press this matter to a Division because it is the only way that we can try to ensure that they are bound by statute.

Mr. Francis Pym: Perhaps I can clarify this point. The decision on whether or not we would have to hold a referendum does not have to be taken now, because we hope to defeat the Bill. However, our positive thinking about the circumstances that the hon. Member has posed—that the Bill passes into an Act, despite all the opposition—is that we would hold a referendum. We would feel that the position had been reached where the people of Wales would expect and want a referendum. Our thoughts would be that in those circumstances we should have a referendum even though we have opposed the Bill.
However, our aim and objective at present is to defeat the Bill. If we fail, the people of Wales will wish to record their verdict on the Assembly in one way or another. We believe that they must have that opportunity.

Mr. Thomas: I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for that clear statement of Conservative policy. I think that we have made great progress, and we were glad to hear his very welcome statement.
There is one other small point. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that such a referendum would be held soon after Royal Assent was given to this Bill? Will he assure us that there will be no delay in implementing the provisions of the referendum?

Mr. Pym: The answer is that as long as we are on this side of the House we have no option. However, if, in the meantime, there is a General Election and we change sides, we would hold the referendum in accordance with the amendment, tabled by the Government and not yet discussed, to make this Bill coincide with the amendment to the Scotland Bill that was carried against the Government's wishes. That provides for a gap of three months between a General Election and the referendum.
In tabling their amendment, the Government have indicated not that the referendum would be held precisely three months after a General Election but that it would be held not less than three months after. If a General Election intervened between the passing of the Bill into law and the holding of a referendum,


we would hold it in accordance with those terms—not less than three months after the election. We have no more intention than the Government of delaying it inordinately. If, for good reasons, the period were four or five month, that would be understood. The Government have not committed themselves to more than that.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we would hold the referendum in accordance with the terms of the Bill passed by Parliament—if it is passed.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that intervention, which clarifies the position of the Conservative Party on this issue. As far as it goes, it will be welcome in Wales. We understand the opposition of the Conservative Party.
I am still concerned about the potential use by a Conservative Secretary of State of the commencement power in Clause 82, but I am satisfied that on the question of the timing of the referendum the Conservative Party has now made a pledge in the House and to the Welsh people that it will be prepared to hold a referendum and, in the regrettable political occurrence of the return of a Conservative Administration, at least it has made a pledge that a referendum will be held soon after the enactment of the Bill.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a further aspect of this matter that needs elucidation? The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that the Conservatives will still try to defeat the Bill, but he did not make clear who will inflict this defeat It may not be hon. Members; it may be done in the House of Lords, where the Conservatives have a large majority. Indeed, there are strong rumours that it is the intention of Tory peers to pass the Scotland Bill and to throw out the Wales Bill.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that news from another place. I am sure that it is accurate. If it is the intention of Conservative peers to try to frustrate the attempts of the elected House of Commons to set up a Welsh Assembly or to hold a referendum to ensure that the Welsh people can make a democratic decision on the question whether they want such an Assembly, they are writing their

own death warrants. The people of Wales would never tolerate a non-elected Chamber preventing them from having a national, elected body. That is clear.
I am glad that we have had elucidation from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. We have made progress in that we have a slightly more bipartisan approach to devolution now than we had five minutes ago. I hope that this attitude of the Conservative Party will be endorsed and honoured if it is ever returned to power.
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, and I do not think that we need to press our amendments on the timing of the referendum. However, the case on the question of the commencement powers has not been answered by the Minister and we have had no assurance from the Conservative Front Bench about the use by a Conservative Secretary of State of these powers. In the absence of such assurances, we may wish to press to a Division our amendments on the commencement orders.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The debate on the commencement procedures is extremely important although the point at issue is narrow.
When I first approached the amendments before the Committee, I read them with a certain amount of sympathy. Obviously, all of us who are in support of the Bill wish to see the Assembly and all its works implemented as soon as possible. However, having studied the amendments further, consulted and taken into account all my little administrative experience, I agree strongly with the Government's attitude. It is virtually impossible in all the administrative and political circumstances to insert a firm date, or even a span of time, as was referred to by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas).
The intervention of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was helpful. In my mind it lightened the dark and forbidding prospect of a possible Conservative Government. It will help me to sleep rather better tonight.
I should have liked to make a long speech on this issue; there are a number of important matters that I should like to put before the Committee. However, as I feel that the Committee should have


the opportunity to debate the 40 per cent. rule I shall exercise a self-denying ordinance, which is a difficult thing for me or any Welshman to do, and sit down.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not wish to contribute to the filibuster that we have heard from Plaid Cymru Members. I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 320 and even greater sympathy with No. 318. Those are the amendments that require that the referendum be held within 90 days of Royal Assent and that the Bill, subject to the referendum, should be implemented within 120 days. My reason is that, like the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), I do not wish to see the Bill frustrated by another place if this place passes it. I am strongly of the opinion that it is right that the Bill should be implemented by Parliament as a whole. The constitution of Britain has to be operated in a way that is based on the will of the House of Commons.
My fear is that if we had a referendum after a General Election the voting in the referendum would be substantially influenced if by a disaster a Conservative Government were returned at a General Election in October. Naturally enough, those voting in Wales, of whom the great majority support the Labour Party, would take the view "Let us have an Assembly that can frustrate the will of the Conservative Government". As a Labour Member I am attracted by the idea of an Assembly that can frustrate the will of a Conservative Government, but I am much more a constitutionalist than a partisan.
It is vital that the Government of a relatively small country such as ours should be capable of carrying out the people's wishes—namely, the will of the entire people. The consequences of having an elected Assembly in Wales which could frustrate the wishes of the elected Government of the country as a whole would be potentially disastrous. If that is the course on which Wales is determined, by all means let Wales decide it, but it is important that its judgment should not be clouded by any anxiety to frustrate the wishes of the Westminster Government.
If we hold the referendum during the life of the present Government, I think that the issues will be decided on their constitutional merits. If we hold the referendum after the General Election, I

think that the voting in the referendum will be influenced by considerations of pure party politics. On a major constitutional issue, it is important that the issues are decided on their own merits.
I hope to have the opportunity later this evening to argue that it is desirable that there should be a sufficient majority who feel strongly that the constitutional position should be changed. There is little merit in the proposal except that it is said that many people in Wales desire it. Let us ensure that when the referendum is held the question whether it is desirable to have an Assembly which can frustrate the wishes of the elected Government of the country as a whole is decided on its merits. That is the issue to be decided in the referendum. Let it not be any other.
Therefore, let us have the referendum soon. I believe that the answer will be "No", but, whatever the answer, let us have it and let us have it unclouded by party-political considerations.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: When I moved my amendment three hours ago, I did not realise that it would create so much interest in the Committee.
We have heard many speeches from both sides of the Committee. Some have been constructive and others have not been quite as good. The views of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) are well known. The least I say on that score the better. I respect his views and I hope that he respects mine. However, I must give him due credit. He said that he believed in devolving power to the people of Wales. Therefore, he believes in that principle, but he said that he would not support the Bill. It is up to him when the time comes whether he will support the Welsh Assembly. It is a matter for his conscience.
We had a contribution from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), whose views also are well known. He, in common with me, is a staunch devolutionist. We both agree with the principle that power should be devolved to the people of Wales. We do not hold the same view on devolution. I believe in a federal system and he believes in separatism. In his view the Bill does not go far enough, and I also hold that view. The hon. Gentleman went on to speak about


the referendum and made a valuable contribution to the debate.
We then heard the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), who was not in favour of my amendments. He gave us his reasons, but not very effectively. He said that he agreed with some of the points which I had raised in my speech. The hon. Gentleman said he supported my views on nominated bodies in Wales.
We then had a constructive speech by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), and I was delighted that he supported my amendment. He also spoke strongly on his own amendment. The Committee then had a contribution from the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Recently we have had a number of speeches by that well-known orator the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He has on many occasions taken part in the debates aimed at devolving power to the Welsh people. However, we have not seen him today. But what a change it was to have another Scotsman—the hon. Member for Dundee, East—to say a few words in defence of my amendment.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) then addressed the Committee with another constructive speech. He referred to the Opposition. I was a little surprised that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) had to defend

Conservative policy on devolution. For the last three hours or so, the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and for Conway (Mr. Roberts) have been present. I am sure that the Welsh people will not understand why those two hon. Gentlemen have not said a word in this debate and why it was left to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire to defend them. I am delighted that he said what he did on behalf of his party.

Finally, I turn to what the Minister said earlier, that every aspect of the Bill should run smoothly and effectively. I agree, but at this late stage—we have had a long debate—I shall not go into a dialogue with him. He said that he objected to the amendment and to the date, 1st January 1979, and he went on to say "or any other day". I have always held the view that
Where there's a will there's a way".
Tonight, I have not had the assurance from the Under-Secretary of State and I have no choice but to say to my colleagues and all the other hon. Gentlemen who have supported the amendments tabled in my name that we must divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 239.

Division No. 181]
AYES
[8.50 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
MacCormick, Iain
Wigley, Dafydd


Crawford, Douglas
Reid, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Douglas
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Clement Freud and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. D. E. Thomas


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Brooke, Peter
Davidson, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Ashton, Joe
Buchanan, Richard
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Budgen, Nick
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric


Atkinson, Norman
Campbell, Ian
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Canavan, Dennis
Dempsey, James


Bates, Alf
Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clemitson, Ivor
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S.)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald
Dunn, James A.


Biffen, John
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Durant, Tony


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Corbett, Robin
Dewar, Donald


Boardman, H.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Eadie, Alex


Body, Richard
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Edge, Geoff


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Crawshaw, Richard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cronin, John
Litterick, Tom


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Tom
Cryer, Bob
English, Michael




Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John


Evans, John (Newton)
McCrindle, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McElhone, Frank
Sever, John


Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Flannery, Martin
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Shepherd, Colin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Forrester, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Silverman, Julius


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Madden, Max
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fry, Peter
Magee, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stanley, John


Ginsburg, David
Mates, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Golding, John
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart, David


Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stott, Roger


Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strang, Gavin


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mendelson, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grist, Ian
Mikardo, Ian
Swain, Thomas


Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E.)


Hardy, Peter
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol, NW)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morgan, Geraint
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tierney, Sydney


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Torney, Tom



Holland, Philip
Moyle, Roland
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Horam, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Newton, Tony
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oakes, Gordon
Ward, Michael


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkins, David


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ovenden, John
Watkinson, John


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Padley, Walter
Weatherill, Bernard


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Janner, Greville
Park, George
Wellbeloved, James


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parker, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert
White, James (Pollock)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Whitlock, William


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan Lea (Hornch'ch)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Judd, Frank
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woodall, Alec


Kinnock, Nell
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lambie, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roderick, Caerwyn



Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Luard, Evan
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Ted Graham and


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Jim Marshall


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Question accordingly negatived.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I beg to move Amendment No. 350, in page 32, line 26, leave out subsection (4).

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 316, in page 32, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
No. 351, in page 32, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and add—

'(4) A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to approval by either House of Parliament.'.
No. 334, in page 32, line 28, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 30.
No. 341, in Clause 83, page 33, line 2, leave out from 'House' to 'Her' in line 4.

Mr. Howells: Amendment No. 350 is consequential upon Amendment No. 344, which was discussed in the previous group. If a firm date is set for the Act to come into force and the power to make orders under subsection (1) is removed, the subsection dealing with the approval of orders should also be removed.
Subsection (4) requires that the orders made under this clause should be approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. This seems to be an unnecessarily difficult procedure for a matter which should be a formality. It would be simpler and quicker to allow the Secretary of State for Wales to make the orders without first acquiring the approval of Parliament.
Amendment No. 351 seeks to make the approval procedure for orders made under this clause simpler and easier. Instead of requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament it permits the orders to be approved by only one House. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give me a satisfactory reply to this debate. If not, I warn the House that I shall press the amendments to Divisions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I admit that I was caught napping on this matter. If Amendment No. 350 were carried it would have an effect which I suspect the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) would not want. If we carried this amendment we should remove the parliamentary procedure provisions from Clauses 82 and 83. That would mean, in effect, that the referendum would no longer be advisory. We believe that all hon. Members have accepted that it should be consultative and that Parliament should not be bound by the result, hence the procedure adopted. I am sure that that is not the intention of the lion. Member for Cardigan, but that would be the consequence of his amendment.
Amendment No. 351 would make each of the commencement orders subject to affirmative resolution. The Government's attitude is that the first such order is of considerable political importance and that that would be the occasion on which Parliament would take the final decision in the light of the referendum. Subsequent commencement orders, however, could deal with fairly minor matters of administrative detail, implementing less important provisions in the Bill. We therefore believe that the subsequent orders would be better dealt with if no resolution procedure was provided.

Mr. Wigley: I wish to deal with Amendment No. 316, which stands in

the names of myself and my hon. Friends and which raises another important issue. It concerns whether the referendum will be binding if the Act goes through. It does not go as far as the amendments to which the Minister has just replied. However, it would be wrong for us in any way to restrict ourselves so that the other place could prevent progress on this matter. We believe that, if provisions are to be annulled or not proceeded with, that should be done as a result of positive action in this House, not as a result of the negative procedure. The issue should be decided by the House of Commons. Although Clause 73 seeks to prevent the other place fouling up our intentions, we suspect that that clause could run into timing troubles in spite of the safeguards which enable the parliamentary recess to be taken into account.
It is possible that Clause 73 could go wrong, and this means that the House of Lords could cut across the wishes of the House of Commons and of the people of Wales. We would therefore prefer to amend the Bill as we propose so that the affirmative procedure would be required if parts of the Act were to be negatived.
We have seen the attitude of the Tories. Although they would presumably permit the referendum to take place, the outlook thereafter is uncertain. There could be a delay not only of three months as was suggested by the Minister but of considerably more than that. We would be most upset if we thought that this clause could be used to facilitate anything in that direction. Once the Bill has been passed, it should stand unless there is specific provision to the contrary. That is not the situation as the Bill is drafted, and we believe that our amendment would overcome that weakness.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I rise briefly to seek elucidation of the purpose of the Conservative Amendments Nos. 341 and 334. I should like to know the intention of the Conservative Opposition in seeking to ensure that the House of Lords is included in the negative resolution procedure proposed in Clause 82(4). That, I take it, is the intention of their Amendments Nos. 334 and 341—that the House of Lords should be included and should have to approve the affirmative resolution procedure, after approval by the


House of Commons, orders both under Clause 82(4) on commencement and on the referendum in Clause 83.
In our debates on an earlier group Of amendments, the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) intervened and indicated that he was concerned that there might be an attempt by a Conservative majority in the House of Lords to frustrate the passage of the Bill and possibly to frustrate the results of a referendum being implemented or to frustrate the setting up of an Assembly after a referendum had taken place in Wales.
My suspicions were immediately aroused after the hon. Member's intervention and after his message from the other place about the intentions of some of their Conservative Lordships that this amendment should be included here. We have not so far had elucidation from the Opposition Front Bench of the purpose of their amendments, but my understanding is that it is to enable the House of Lords to intervene in the decision in setting up the Assembly at the commencement and after the result of the referendum is known.
What I said earlier in reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Newport applies strongly in this case. This is why we oppose most actively the Conservative amendments and press our own amendment for an affirmative resolution rather than a negative resolution in Clause 82(4). We are strongly of the view that the undemocratic and non-elected House of Lords should not be allowed to interfere with a process whereby a Welsh Assembly is set up after the Bill has been passed by the House of Commons and after the matter has been put to the Welsh people in the referendum.
We can conceive of no possible role for their Lordships, once the matter has been put to the people of Wales, in either approving or disapproving of what the Welsh people have expressed by a majority in a referendum. We believe that a decision of the Welsh people must be final and binding in the context of the Bill. Once such a decision has been made, we believe that we should proceed immediately to implement that decision. Therefore, we see no role at all for the House of Lords in this process.
I would like to know why the Conservative Front Bench is tabling these

amendments and seeking to involve the House of Lords in the commencement clause and in the referendum clause.

Mr. Britton: I understand the purport of what the hon. Member is saying and his objection to the House of Lords intervening. However, I wonder, if that is so, why he is party to an amendment which states:
A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
If that means anything at all, it must mean that the House of Lords, as much as the House of Commons, shall have the power to annul the statutory instrument under Clause 82. That gives the House of Lords a strengthened role rather than a diminished role. Has the hon. Member merely got it all wrong and drafted it incorrectly, or has he changed his mind?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon, and learned Gentleman that our parliamentary draftsmen have not got it wrong in this case.
In this clause we are talking about something different from that which the hon, and learned Member is now trying to introduce. I am talking about the position after a referendum has been held and after the Bill has been enacted in this place and has been put to the Welsh people. I am talking about the role of the House of Lords in that process after a democratic decision has been put to the Welsh people. I am not talking about the statutory instrument procedure, which is a procedure of secondary legislation which can be scrutinised in the House of Commons and in another place. On the amendment tabled by the Conservative Opposition, I am talking about the intervention of the House of Lords after a decision has been taken by the democratic will of the Welsh people in a referendum.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Britton: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is at cross-purposes. I am talking about the amendment to which he is referring—namely, Amendment No. 316. Under the Bill as it stands, subsection (4) says:
The first order under this section"—
that is, the commencement order—
shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".


or by the House of Commons under the Clause 73 procedure. That means that, on the face of it both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have to approve the resolution, but if the House of Lords does not do it the House of Commons can do it alone if it does it a second time. For that, the hon. Gentleman seeks, in Amendment No. 316, to substitute a provision saying:
A statutory instrument under this section"—
that is, the order under the clause—
shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That would mean that a commencement order made under that clause could be annulled by the House of Lords, whereas, under the Bill as it stands, it could not be annulled by the House of Lords if the House of Commons overruled it.
Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that either he must have changed his mind, having started off with a great desire that the House of Lords should have a bigger role than the Government would wish it to have, or he has got the drafting totally wrong.

Mr. Thomas: With respect, I think that we are here dealing with two separate issues. We are dealing with the Statutory Instrument method of taking a decision, which can be subject, as we propose in Amendment No. 316, to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. That is one issue. The other issue, as at present laid down in the Bill, is the provision through, in this case, the negative resolution procedure. There is a difference between proceeding in secondary legislation through statutory instruments and proceeding through a negative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
What we are talking about in our amendment is a less cumbersome procedure of using a Statutory Instrument to do this. Of course, it is the convention of both our Houses of Parliament that Statutory Instruments can be introduced in either Chamber, and that is what is allowed for in our amendment.
What the hon, and learned Member is referring to in Amendments Nos. 334 and 341 is an attempt to introduce the House of Lords into the negative resolution procedure. With respect, I think that that is a different situation. In our amendment

we are talking about the Statutory Instrument procedure. In our view, that is a simpler procedure than the negative resolution procedure for dealing with the implementation of this clause.

Mr. Brittan: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member yet again, but what we are saying is quite simple. It is that the House of Lords ought to have the role and it ought not to be cut out. But what I am asking is about the hon. Gentleman's amendment, because it does not talk merely about a Statutory Instrument. It talks about a Statutory Instrument "under this section", and "this section" is Clause 82. The sole purpose of the clause is for commencement orders. If commencement orders are to be made by Statutory Instrument, the procedure under subsection (4) is to be substituted by the hon. Gentleman's procedure, and under the procedure that the hon. Gentleman substitutes it is as plain as a pikestaff that the House of Lords shall have the veto.
If the hon. Gentleman does not want that, he would be doing the Committee a great service by saying that the drafting is wrong. As it stands, however, there can be no doubt about it. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to argue to the contrary, it is incumbent upon him to explain what is meant by
A statutory instrument under this section",
and it is no use his talking at large about a Statutory Instrument procedure in general under the Bill. He should say how he would apply a Statutory Instrument to this clause, which is concerned solely with commencement orders.

Mr. Thomas: The reference in our amendment to the Statutory Instrument procedure is to the whole commencement procedure, including subsection (2), which lays down that there can be different appointed days for different provisions of the Bill. We envisage that either House could have power to initiate action under that subsection in regard to the transfer of power.

Mr. Wigley: The point is that under subsection (2) there is provision for the commencement of a large number of different facets of the Bill at different times. We argued against this in the previous debate. Different Statutory Instruments can arise in relation to the


commencement of those different facets. We are saying that there should be provision for the Statutory Instruments to be subject to annulment by either House when Statutory Instruments that we do not like are brought forward. If our wording is imperfect we shall not press the amendment, but our objective is to provide for annulment in pursuance of Statutory Instrument procedure through either House when Statutory Instruments that may not be what we want can be brought forward under subsection (2).
A very odd way of commencing an Act is provided in the clause. I cannot see why it is necessary to go through this cumbersome procedure unless it is to provide the sort of pitfalls outlined and suggested in the interventions from the Conservative Front Bench, which may be in the minds of Conservative Members.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that it has helped to elucidate the point we are making and the difference between the two procedures.

Mr. Brittan: Perhaps I may intervene again on this matter, because it is clearly vital. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) at least hinted at the possibility that the amendment was incorrectly drawn. It would be of great assistance to the Committee to know whether the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) accepts that that is so. Would he not agree that, far from simplifying the procedure, what is proposed would complicate it?
The Government propose that the first order should be one that each House of Parliament must approve, subject to the Clause 73 procedure, whereas what the hon. Gentleman proposes is that not only the first order but all orders should be subject to annulment. That means that the hon. Gentleman would be in a worse position from the point of view that he is arguing as opposed to the point of view he put in his amendment, because that would mean that for every subsequent order made by the Minister, which at present is subject to no parliamentary procedure under this clause, there would be the possibility of the House of Lords, by a simple resolution, saying "This shall not come into effect."
Either the hon. Gentleman disagrees with my interpretation of the effect of

his amendment, in which case I should be very interested to hear why I am wrong, or he wants what I have said, which is certainly a discovery to me. If he does not want it, the amendment cannot be right and he had better seek to withdraw it.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon, and learned Gentleman for his further intervention. I think that the appropriate form of words to use now is "We shall take another look at this between now and Report, and we may seek to introduce another, better drafted amendment".
But the hon, and learned Gentleman's criticism of the drafting of our amendment does not remove the basic criticism I have made of his and his right hon, and hon. Friends' amendment to the negative resolution procedure. We have not yet heard an explanation why they are so anxious to include their Lordships' House in that procedure. Perhaps the hon, and learned Gentleman would care to intervene again and explain that. I should gladly give way to him, but I see that he does not wish to intervene now. I look forward to his detailed explanation in due course.
We feel deep anxiety about possible delay in any commencements under the clause, just as we expressed anxiety earlier about the timing of the referendum.
We attempted earlier this evening to ensure that there was a statutory time limit or structure to the decisions which have to be made by any Secretary of State after the Bill has been enacted. We are very anxious that such a procedure should take place as rapidly as possible, in terms of both the transfer of power and the holding and timing of the referendum. This has been the purpose of our amendments.
In view of the criticism of our drafting, we shall, if it stands, need to look at the matter in some detail. As we are not represented in the other place, we are unable, of course, to introduce our amendments there.

Sir Raymond Gower: On the whole, we approve of what the hon. Gentleman has done but we have doubts about what he has said. I think that that summarises our attitudes, although I am not, of course, attempting in any way to speak


for my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I am not trying to plead the superior merit of the House of Lords but I am opposed to what the hon. Gentleman has said because, as we have said in dealing with an earlier clause, we uphold the constitution as it is and not as the hon. Gentleman would like it to be or as I might like it to be.
Parliament in its wisdom, under successive Governments in former years, has prescribed certain procedures. The usual procedure for dealing with a matter such as this gives certain powers to both Houses of Parliament. I do not know whether I speak for anyone else on this subject, but I believe that it is wrong to use a Bill such as this as a vehicle for changing a constitutional arrangement. We believe that the Government's form of wording in subsection (4) is objectionable. But we certainly applaud the wording that he has put on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Wigley: We have been able to discover what has happened. We are at fault in this. There has apparently been a transposition of wording from that in the original amendment to that which appears on the Order Paper. We understand, of course, the printing difficulties at the present time. Rather than "either House of Parliament", the term we had was "the House of Commons", and it appears that the wording in the latter part of Amendment No. 351 has found its way into Amendment No. 316. That seems to be the origin of the misunderstanding.

Sir R. Gower: At one stage, the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) said that he and his colleagues felt that after the Bill was dealt with by Parliament, providing for to the Assembly, the House of Lords had no status to interfere. I was almost prepared to hear him follow that by saying that after it had gone from the House of Commons to the Assembly, Parliament had no right to interfere. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman would like to have said. I think that what he means is that he wants something which is far more sweeping than what appears in the Bill.

That is a fair point of view, although it is one with which we certainly do not agree.
It is always bad to change constitutional procedures for the purpose of effecting a change at a particular time or in a particular measure. I think that it is not merely objectionable. I hope that we shall reject the Government's wording, which does not use the proper constitutional machinery but chooses to try to invent a new kind of machinery. As I indicated earlier, we also reject the import of what the hon. Gentleman said in his speech. It is not that we seek to establish a superior merit in one part of Parliament or one part of the constitution. Parliament is a choate whole, and our constitution, if it is to be changed, should be changed by other means.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Pym: I do not intend to intervene at any great length, because I know that the Committee wishes to make progress. In relation to the group of amendments before the Committee, I agree very much indeed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has just said. I greatly regret that the guillotine fell at 5 p.m. in such a way that it was not possible to have a debate on Clause 73. It is a matter for regret that on the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Scotland Bill, and now the Wales Bill, we have had no debate at all on this very important Clause 73, which seeks to interfere with the way in which Parliament operates, in the sense that it seeks to restrict the powers of the House of Lords and cause any decision that it may take to be overruled by this House on a second vote. It is not only a matter for regret; it is a legislative scandal of the first magnitude.
I do not think that it would be right for me to make the speech that I should like to have made with regard to Clause 73. Nevertheless, it is relevant.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: rose—

Mr. Pym: I shall not give way, for a moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, because I was asked what the purpose of our amendments was. This is relevant to the two amendments in my name that are being discussed with this group, because


Clause 73 is intended to apply to the commencement Clause 82 and the referendum Clause 83. We Conservatives think that it is absolutely wrong, by means of this Bill, to alter the operation of Parliament and to say that the House of Lords shall have no say whatsoever.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) said that he could imagine no role whatever for the House of Lords in these circumstances. I can only say that we Conservatives totally disagree. This is a decision that is being taken by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman showed the anarchic element of his party's policy, which wants to have all the advantages of being a member of the United Kingdom, and especially favoured treatment, without anyone questioning it and everyone gladly working it out on that basis.

Mr. Crawford: rose—

Mr. Pym: I am sorry. I shall not give way for the moment, because I want to make my points briefly. The hon. Member for Merioneth wants to have it both ways. He wants to have all the advantages and then wants to provide that the House of Lords can have no say whatever in the matter.
The point about the referendum, which is relevant to the commencement clause, is quite simply that if the Bill becomes a;. Act Parliament will have decided that the people of Wales shall be consulted. After that, Parliament will take a decision in the light of the result of the referendum. The Government themselves will move an amendment to the preamble to the question in the referendum which states that
Parliament has decided to consult the electorate in Wales".
That is what we shall be asked to pass. I shall support that when the time comes, because an amendment in exactly the same terms was tabled in my name to the Scotland Bill. That is what the Conservatives have decided to do. Yet by Clause 82(4) and Clause 83(3) the Government intend to try to prevent the House of Lords from having any say whatever. That is an absolutely wrong change to make.
There is plenty of scope for change and reform in Parliament. But if we are to make changes in our constitutional

practice, in my view is should be done in a constitutional Bill designed for that purpose. I am totally in favour of doing that. But until that moment arrives it is a mistake to make any adjustment at all—as it were, by the back door—and to alter our procedure. That is what this is, It is slipping in a few words which will have the effect of making irrelevant any decision or view of the House of Lords. I do not think that that is the right situation to envisage.
We must remember that the present Government do not have a very good track record with regard to the management of Parliament. We should remember how, in previous Sessions, they have used their majority, for instance, to overturn the hybridity rule. They may wish to overturn a decision both of the House of Lords and, conceivably, of a referendum result carried out by the Welsh people. It is possible. We are legislating here for all circumstances, and I am saying that it is wrong to cut out the House of Lords in the case of the commencement and the referendum clauses.
The other area where Clause 73 was to be used is in terms of the override powers. We had some mention of this matter in the debate on the clauses dealing with the override powers, and the Government's reply on that occasion treated it as though it were a minor matter, as though it were impossible to imagine anyone criticising the idea, and that if the House of Lords came to a view different from that of the House of Commons, the House of Commons must overrule it.
If we are to change our constitutional practice in that way, it must be done on the basis of a properly thought out proposal put before the House by the Government and considered by both Houses. Then, if Parliament decides to make the change, so be it. But it is wrong to slip in what is in principle a very big change in our constitution and practice in a Bill of this kind, which is not designed to affect the constitution of Parliament although it is designed to deal with the working of the constitution in Wales.
I make those brief remarks about Clause 73 in order to give a full and frank explanation, as briefly as possible,


of what was behind the Conservative Party's thinking in tabling these amendments. Although I do not expect the hon. Member for Merioneth to agree with it, that was the thinking behind the amendments.
Perhaps I may be allowed to make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Merioneth. If he wants to make progress in the direction in which he believes, he would be wiser to do so by seeking the agreement of Parliament, if that could be achieved, rather than by attempting, as the Government are attempting, to cut out the possible decision which might be taken in another place.
We realise that these amendments cannot be voted upon. We have not asked for a separate vote on them, and I do not imagine that you, Sir Myer, would grant one if we did. But we have tabled them in order to try to make sure that our normal, well tried constitutional procedure and practice will be used in the normal manner after this legislation has been passed, assuming that it becomes an Act.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I said that I had no intention of delaying our proceedings any longer than necessary. There are very important amendments to be debated in the next hour or so. But I am not satisfied with the Under-Secretary's reply, and I have no alternative but to advise right hon, and hon. Members to support my amendment.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I was always warned that when assessing the speeches of politicians I should be very suspicious of those who said that their full and frank view was such-and-such. My suspicions of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) have proved well founded in the light of his speech. He asked for properly thought out proposals, but when have we ever had properly thought out proposals from him or any other member of the Conservative Front Bench on devolution for either Scotland or Wales? My admiration for the right hon. Gentleman goes up by leaps and bounds when I hear him at the Opposition Dispatch Box, without any policy, making interesting and exemplary speeches which have no substance to them.
The right hon. Member said that it was a pity that the guillotine had fallen thereby not allowing us to discuss Clause

73. It is a great pity that many matters have not been discussed on numerous clauses in both this and the Scotland Bill. However, if we take that to its logical conclusion the Conservatives will probably tell us that if we discussed all these matters in detail we should be sitting here morning, noon and evening for about seven months. If we are to make progress we have to have some kind of discipline in discussion, but so far we have had no alternative suggestions from the right hon. Gentleman or from any of his Front Bench colleagues.
I was very touched by the right hon. Member's concern about the House of Lords. One would never imagine that the Tories had a permanent majority in that House. Apparently, they are the great fountains of wisdom in considering legislation, particularly that which affects other nations of the United Kingdom. I have never found the House of Lords in any way sympathetic to the aspirations at the people of Scotland or Wales at any time in the history of these islands.
The right hon. Member said plenty about the scope for change in Parliament, but I have not yet heard what changes he proposes, or what proposals his party will bring forward. The question of the Welsh Assembly has been debated at considerable length for very much longer than any Welsh piece of business for many years. This reflects great credit on my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). It is only because of their presence in Parliament that so much time has been spent discussing Welsh business during the last year. Because of them the Bill is here today.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is the hon. Member aware that as a result of the time wasted on this Bill there has been no Welsh affairs debate in the House for one and a half years? This Bill has meant that we have been unable to debate the things that really matter to the Welsh people.

Mr. Henderson: I am sure that that intervention from the Opposition Front Bench means that a Conservative Supply Day will be allocated to Welsh affairs very soon.

Mr. Edwards: I would point out that on the last occasion that Welsh affairs were debated it was on an Opposition Supply Day.

Mr. Henderson: I have been in this House only four years, and therefore my membership is not long enough to remember the last time Welsh affairs were debated on a Conservative Supply Day. I take it that we shall have a discussion on Welsh affairs in Opposition time in the next few weeks.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I certainly will not permit the line of argument in which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) is indulging. We are not discussing when we shall have a Welsh debate. I ask the hon. Member to stick to the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Henderson: If you are criticising me, Sir Myer, for saying that we should have time to debate Welsh affairs you should also criticise the Conservative Front Bench. They raised this matter, and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has given a pledge, or a semipledge—which is the nearest we can get to a pledge from the Conservatives—that Welsh affairs will be discussed in Opposition time very soon—

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Sir Myer. That is a total misrepresentation. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) will withdraw that remark. He has alleged that my hon. Friend gave a pledge that there would be a Welsh debate on an Opposition Supply Day very soon. The hon. Member is inventing that. It is a mischief, and he must withdraw.

Mr. Henderson: I gladly withdraw the allegation that the Conservatives are about to devote a day's debate to Welsh affairs. Obviously, they are not interested in Wales.
We are discussing the question whether the House of Lords should have a definitive role in relation to the future of Wales. When we have discussed this Bill, and it has gone through the various stages and received the Royal Assent, the people of Wales will have the opportunity to vote—I hope resoundingly in favour of a Welsh Assembly—in the referendum. The question is whether the House of Lords

should then have a role in deciding whether the Assembly should come into being. I look forward to the support of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who may be no friend of Plaid Cymru but who, in all honesty, is no friend of the House of Lords either. Is he really going to say that if the Welsh people vote for an Assembly he will incite the House of Lords to stop the Welsh people from getting what they want?
Will the hon. Member for Bedwellty be true to the principles that he has enunciated so often in the House and say that the House of Lords should have no say in a matter that has been the subject of democratic decision by the ordinary people of Wales? That is the cleft stick in which he and so many of his hon. Friends are caught.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: One of the best uses for cleft sticks is the trapping of snakes, and I look forward to doing that to Plaid Cymru, the SNP and any other reptilian politicians who enter this House or any other place.

Mr. Henderson: I do not know whether you consider that to be an unparliamentary expression, Sir Myer. You may wish to reflect on that matter. I could talk about dinosaur politicians, and there are a few such representatives on the Government side. The hon. Member for Bedwellty has given no straight answer. Does he believe that the House of Lords should have a veto over the Welsh people?

Mr. Kinnock: I do not believe that the House of Lords should have a veto over anything, but if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had been as resilient and insistent on giving the Welsh and Scottish people a voice in this matter from the outset, we might have had the referendum much earlier. The question could have been settled without the waste of time of this House or the waste of money involved in continuing with legislation that the people of Wales will never support.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is being presumptuous in saying that the people of Wales will or will not support something. It is up to them to make a decision, as it will be up to the people


of Scotland to make a decision on the matters relating to them.
I accept the belated and circumscribed assurance of the hon. Member for Bedwellty that he would not allow the House of Lords to override the people of Wales. The assurance was not made in the usual resounding tones that the hon. Gentleman uses when speaking about the House of Lords or the rights of the people of Wales.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire complained that the amendments would make irrelevant any decision or view of the House of Lords. It is time that we made all views of the House of Lords irrelevant in relation to anything that the people have decided upon.
I look forward with great interest to hearing from the right hon. Gentleman about all the proposals that he is to put forward to change things, and about the scope for reform that he is talking about. For example, he spoke about extending proportional representation. What is it to extend to? What are his proposals? We have heard not a word so far.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not hear the proposals tonight. Let us get on.

Mr. Henderson: You have never spoken a truer word. Sir Myer. We shall not hear them tonight, and I do not believe that we shall ever hear them.
I hope that we shall make clear in the vote that the voice of the people of Wales will not be stilled by the House of Lords or anyone else.

Mr. Alec Jones: Perhaps I could say something about the amendments that came on the scene after my first intervention. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) found my reply unsatisfactory, but it could not be any other sort of reply because I could not recommend the House to accept an amendment the consequences of which would be that the referendum would no longer be advisory to Parliament. I regret that he feels that this issue should be put to the vote.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my hon. Friend aware that however satisfactory or unsatisfactory his reply had been to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), we would have had a vote anyway, because some

Opposition Members are more interested in wasting time than in hearing replies of any description?

Mr. Jones: I have tried in today's debates to cut my remarks short in the hope that we might reach mystical Amendment No. 325, which is apparently arousing excitement.
I must tell the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who spoke to Amendment No. 316, that I was in some difficulty. I assumed that there was something slightly wrong with the amendment. I took that view because it is rather unusual. I am grateful to the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who finally sorted out the difficulty.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Jones: I am not making an issue of that. It seems that we are right in providing that the first commencement order, because of its importance, shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, with the standby of Clause 73. I know that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) does not like Clause 73, but that is to be the arrangement. The subsequent commencement orders, because of their lesser importance and because the second batch of orders will be brought forward after consultation with the Welsh Assembly, will not involve further parliamentary procedures. We do not think it necessary that they should do so for the reasons that I have outlined That is why I was somewhat surprised when Amendment No. 316 appeared.

Mr. Wigley: I, too, am grateful to the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) for pointing out an error in the drafting of Amendment No. 316. For that reason I shall not be pressing it in the way that I indicated earlier.

Mr. Jones: I am glad to hear that. The hon. Gentleman may rest content that it is not only Back-Bench Members or Members of minority parties who find drafting mistakes in their amendments; that sometimes happens to the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench and to Government Ministers. I have learnt that from sitting on both sides of the Chamber.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 334 and 341. We dealt at some length with the partial exclusion of another place. It seems, from Hansard of 4th April, that we went into the matter in considerable detail. On that occasion the Government's position was explained. I know that it is not one that the Opposition accept. They still think that we were wrong and, equally, we still think that we were right.
Our basic position is that when the issue is put to the people of Wales by means of the referendum the people will make the first decision. If that decision is in favour of devolution, the first commencement order will be made. It will be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses, subject to Clause 73. We believe that it would be wrong if the will of the people as expressed through the referendum, and the will of hon. Members as expressed in the House of Commons, were thwarted by the non-elected other place.
We are not suggesting that there is no role for another place. There will be a role for the other place, but that will largely be confined to powers of delay, which may oblige the House of Commons to reconsider. Therefore, I hope that those amendments will be rejected by the Committee.

Mr. Crawford: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) wish to take part in the debate?

Mr. Crawford: I do, Sir Myer.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has heard hardly any of the debate. I deprecate the attitude of hon. Members who have heard hardly anything of a debate and have to get notes at the last minute to tell them what to talk about.

Mr. Henderson: Not correct.

Mr. Crawford: I am grateful to you, Sir Myer. I have no doubt that Hansard will have reported our remarks.
I do not wish to detain the Committee too long, but I have one or two comments to make about the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). The hon. Gentleman accused the nationalists of being reptilian. He is in company with

his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes), who accused us of being worse, as being friends of Dr. Goebbels. He has said that we are wasting time. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that some of his hon. Friends—no doubt in this instance he will regard one or two hon. Members on the Conservative Benches as his friends as well—have been wasting time.
We are interested in the sovereignty of Parliament on this amendment and on the clause. We have been very concerned in our party, as have the Plaid Cymru Members, about the sovereignty of the House of Commons, the Treasury, and so on. However, I wish to ask the Conservative Party why it has not sought to speak to, and perhaps force a vote on, its Amendments Nos. 334 and 341. I look forward to hearing what they say on those amendments.

The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) spoke to those amendments, but the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) was not present. That was the point I made earlier.

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I did not realise that you were here to reply for the Conservatives.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am not here to reply to the debate. I am here to maintain order and the dignity of the Committee.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I believe that it would be in the good traditions of Parliament that that remark should be withdrawn.

The First Deputy Chairman: It was directed to the Chair, and I shall treat it with the disdain that it deserves.

Mr. Evans: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. It is a reflection on Parliament as well as on the Chair, and I call on the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, East (Mr. Henderson) to withdraw that remark.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am not bothering with it. I shall put the Question.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 12.

Division No. 182]
AYES
[9.56 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
MacCormick, Iain
Welsh, Andrew


Crawford, Douglas
Reid, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Freud, Clement
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Douglas
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Cyril Smith.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morgan, Geraint


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ashley, Jack

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moyle, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Ginsburg, David
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Golding, John
Noble, Mike


Atkinson, Norman
Gould, Bryan
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Bates, Alf
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John (Islington C)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grocott, Bruce
Ovenden, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Padley, Walter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Palmer, Arthur


Boardman, H.
Hardy, Peter
Park, George


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Bradley, Tom

Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles



Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Horam, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Campbell, Ian
Hunter, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)



Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rooker, J. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ryman, John


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sedgemore, Brian


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sever, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Corbett, Robin
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cronin, John
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silverman, Julius


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Arthur
Litterick, Tom
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)



Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Luard, Evan
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deakins, Eric
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stoddart, David


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Swain, Thomas


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dunn, James A.
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dewar, Donald
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Edge, Geoff
McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


English, Michael
Magee, Bryan
Tomlinson, John


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Torney, Tom


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Flannery, Martin
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watkinson, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
White, James (Pollok)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Moonman, Eric
Whitlock, William







Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey



Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Ted Graham and


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. James Tinn.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment No. 320 proposed, in page 32, line 30, at end add—
'(5) Subject to the provisions of section 83(1) below, the first order under this section

shall be made within 120 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 222.

Division No. 183]
AYES
[10.9 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Pardoe, John
Welsh, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Reid, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Freud, Clement
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



Henderson, Douglas
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Thompson, George
Mrs. Winifred Ewing and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Douglas Crawford.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom



Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
English, Michael
Luard, Evan


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, John (Newton)
McCartney, Hugh


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McElhone, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bates, Alf
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bean, R. E.
Flannery, Martin
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McNamara, Kevin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Madden, Max


Boardman, H.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Magee, Bryan


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Rt Hon Or John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael


Buchanan, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Graham, Ted
Mendelson, John


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moonman, Eric


Clemitson, Ivor
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Geraint


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland


Cook, Robin F. (Edin. C.)
Hooley, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Corbett, Robin
Horam, John
Newens, Stanley


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Huckfield, Les
Noble, Mike


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon


Cronin, John
Hushes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parker, John


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parry, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dunn, James A.
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)




Rooker, J. W.
Stott, Roger
Weitzman, David


Rose, Paul B.
Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Surmmerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, James (Pollok)


Ryman, John
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Sedgemore, Brian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sever, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shaw Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tierney, Sydney
Wilson William (Coventry SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tinn, James

Wise, Mrs Audrev


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomlinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Silverman, Julius
Torney, Tom
Woof, Robert


Skinner, Dennis

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Snape, Peter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watkinson, John
Mr. Frank R. White.


Stoddart, David

Question accordingly negatived.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That Clause 82 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"—

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I wish to speak on the Question, "That Clause 82 stand part of the Bill".

The First Deputy Chairman: Yes, that is all right. The Question is, That Clause 82 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for being called to speak on the clause. This is a vital clause in the Bill. There are several aspects of it which have not been debated on the amendments this evening.
We are particularly disappointed that the Government have not been in a position to give certainty about the date of the referendum in relation to the date of the passing of the Bill. Neither has there been certainty that any other Government cannot avoid implementing the provisions of the Bill or cannot put severe delays on its implementation. We do not know in what circumstances the Secretary of State will introduce the commencement orders, and particularly in the debates that we had earlier on the amendments to subsections (1) and (2)—

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Can the hon. Gentleman have some attention from the Committee?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no doubt that the hon. Member will receive the attention that his speech deserves.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that back-handed compliment, Sir Myer.
As I was saying, the one question that has not been cleared up is the relationship between the timing of a General Election and the timing of the referendum. Given the provisions that the Government are bringing forward, that there will have to be a delay of three months in the case of the Wales Bill, as has already been built into the Scotland Bill, and that the referendum can take place after a General Election, this leaves the question of putting a date on the referendum in a most unsatisfactory way.
However, there are other aspects of Clause 82 to which I should have thought

that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would apply their minds. I am very surprised that Conservative Members have not made any comments on subsection (3). It states:
An order under this section may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, including provision for expenses to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
This is clearly a most important provision. The funds for the implementation of certain aspects of the Act are related to the clause, but it is not clear from this wording what will be included in the expenses. Does this cover anything that has any relevance to any part of the Bill, or does it relate specifically to one order only? We would have expected clarification of this.
We also ask whether money can be spent under the clause prior to the referendum taking place. That leads us to a question which was raised in an intervention in a previous debate about expenditure on letting the people of Wales know the pros and cons of the argument in relation to setting up a Welsh Assembly prior to a referendum. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—and I think that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) may have raised this point in another amendment that we have not reached—who are concerned about the amount of money that is available to project and propagate the arguments for and against the Assembly in a balanced fashion.
Recalling the arguments that took place at the time of the debate on the referendum on our membership of the EEC, it is clear with hindsight that a far larger sum was spent by those arguing for a "Yes" result than that spent by those arguing for a "No" result. Anyone looking at that argument dispassionately cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that the amount of money available to one side must have influenced the result. I do not think that anyone would want to see a referendum for the Welsh Assembly—or for the Scottish Assembly, for that matter—undertaken in a situation in which people could argue that the result had been bought.
The fear of my colleagues and myself is that this result could be bought by


money from big business—the CBI and other such institutions, which have taken a very positive line against a "Yes" vote in the referendum. However, I accept, although I do not follow the argument, that it is conceivable that those who are arguing for a "No" vote could have similar fears—that money could be pumped in in favour of the "Yes" campaign to an extent much greater than that available for the "No" campaign.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does the hon. Member seriously consider that any amount of money could have produced a result against the Common Market in that referendum, bearing in mind the leaders of the campaign against the Common Market in the referendum?

Mr. Wigley: If it was my opinion that the people of Wales—or of England or of Scotland, for that matter—had voted on an issue as important as the Common Market purely in response and in reaction to a number of individuals who might have been heading one campaign or the other, my opinion of the people of these three countries would go down considerably. I think that the people voted on the issues as they were presented to them. But the argument in relation to money is about the facility for presenting the arguments to the people. It is not just the number of pieces of paper that one can shove through letter-boxes. It is the amount of money that one can spend on the design, the graphics and the presentation that make the pieces of paper that appear before people readable and presentable, and pieces of paper of which they will wish to take notice.

Mr. Crawford: I take all the points that the hon. Member has made. However, does he agree with me—and I am very sorry about this—that certain amounts of money will be made available by big business in Wales and in Scotland against a "Yes" vote in the referendums? Will he ask the Minister who, presumably, will be winding up the debate if he catches the eye of the Chair to make it very clear that there will be no discrimination for or against a "Yes" vote or a "No" vote?

Mr. Wigley: This is something that causes us considerable concern. Will there be controls on the expenditure of

either side in the referendum campaign? It is a matter that I have raised both publicly in the House and privately with the Minister of State, Privy Council Office in order to try to find a formula by which such control can take place. But the absence of control—and, unless amendments which have not been tabled so far are forthcoming, the situation is that there will be no controls in the Bill—leaves the issue wide open for those in the CBI and big business who see their interests and the interests of those they represent as benefiting from not having a Welsh Assembly or a Scottish Assembly spending all the money they like in order to propagate their campaign.
One way of overcoming that problem, to some extent at least, would be—if the Government were in a position to do so and were determined to do so—for the Government to put money towards presenting the "Yes" case and the "No" case together, cogently, coherently and in a balanced fashion, to ensure that the arguments for both cases went into every household. That was done to a certain degree in the context of the Common Market, although it was swamped by the money that came from outside.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: I sympathise with the view the hon. Gentleman is expressing that he does not want people's opinions to be unbalanced by the expenditure of large amounts of money. It is an argument that I find very appealing. Indeed, I agree with every word of it. But if, instead of initiating this debate on "clause stand part" or participating in the delaying tactics that we saw earlier in the day, the hon. Gentleman had allowed us to proceed to Amendment No. 256, in my name, and I had been able to rely on the support of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and other hon. Members throughout the Committee, we might even have amended the Bill to ensure that there was full and legal scrutiny of any money or services tendered in kind to either side of the argument in the referendum campaign. That would have provided a severe discipline against the over-balancing of one argument or one set of opinions or the other by the expenditure of very large amounts of money.
With regard to the hon Gentleman's point about big business, he and


I can see, on the basis of what has happened hitherto, that for the referendum in Wales all the money—substantial amounts—will be spent by the "pro" vote and hardly any by the "anti" vote.

Mr. Wigley: No. The evidence that came over television from the CBI conference in Cardiff the week before last was that, unfortunately, there appears to be a strong opinion there against the "Yes" vote and that it is moving in the direction of using its funds to support the "No" campaign. We can see that this is happening already, as, I believe, is the case in Scotland. I believe that the Keep Scotland British campaign—if I have the title correct—has funds at its disposal way out of proportion to any funds available to the campaign for a "Yes" vote.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does my hon. Friend remember that during the Common Market campaign there were two "For" pamphlets to every one "Against"? Apparently, that was paid for out of public funds. Bearing in mind that experience, will my hon. Friend remember that the "For" campaign suggested that the SNP was alarmist when it said that we would not get 50 miles for our fishermen? When we said this we were ridiculed in the House of Commons, but the fact is that we did not get 50 miles for our fishermen and they were sold down the river by the Conservative Party, which took us in, and by the Labour Party—

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Lady must not allow her intervention to develop into a speech.

Mrs. Ewing: I shall not do that. I shall just finish my intervention, Mr. Murton.

The Chairman: I ask the hon. Lady to be very quick.

Mrs. Ewing: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that experience when he considers that only 57 per cent. of the Scots voted "Yes", on a misleading set of facts? May I ask him, having that experience in mind—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is now going very wide of the clause.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that intervention, because it underlines what can happen when funds are available disproportionately to one side compared

with another. I believe that many people now look at the EEC differently from the way they were led to believe was correct at the time of the referendum.
I return however, to subsection (3) which says,
including provision for expenses to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
We do not know from those words what those expenses will be used for. Will they be used for the provision of information about the campaign? Will they meet any of the campaign costs, or are they purely for the bureaucratic work relating to the first order that may come under the clause?
I should have thought that this would be an issue on which hon. Members of all parties would have a deep concern. I was under the impression at one stage that the Conservatives had tabled an amendment to the subsection. It does not appear to be on the Amendment Paper now, though I may have missed it. It certainly has not been called. I should have thought that there would at least be a cogent argument.
I come back to what the hon. Member for Bedwellty said, that unfortunately we had not reached his amendment, which he says could perhaps have protected us over this issue. I regret very much that we shall not reach another amendment, standing in my name, which comes before the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but this is what happens with a guillotine. I suggest that, if he were to put forward his amendment on Report there could be cross-party agreement on this type of provision, which could then be built into the Wales Bill—and possibly also into the Scotland Bill—to ensure that, whatever differences we may have on the content of the Wales Bill and the proposals for a Welsh Assembly, there shall be a balance in the expenditure, so that at the end of the day each side can say, whether it won or lost, that everything happened fairly.
This argument applies not only to the propaganda put out by the protagonists on either side. It also applies to the amount of television time available for proposing one side of the argument or the other. This aspect ought to be borne in mind in securing a proper balance in the expenditure.
I move now to another aspect of Clause 82—

Sir Raymond Gower: Did not the hon. Gentleman notice a statement on behalf of the Government that money was not to be spent in this way? Does not the term "expenses" probably mean simply the actual costs of the operation and not expenditure of the kind that the hon. Gentleman proposed?

Mr. Wigley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) on his elevation to the Government Front Bench. I would rather have from the Government the categoric assertion on the meaning of the phrase, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman. I have seen many statements from the Government over the past weeks and months as to various aspects of the Bill. Some of them are contradictory. Some have changed from time to time. The Government should still be receptive to the type of representation made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty in favour of securing a balance in the expenditure.
When the hon. Member for Barry intervened, I was about to move to another aspect of Clause 82. I understand the reason why it was impossible for Mr. Deputy Speaker to accede to our request that Amendments Nos. 310 and 311 should be debated. Perhaps I may refer to them briefly in passing, even though they were not on the Amendment Paper and have not been debated. They provided that, even though the Welsh Assembly might not come to fruition after the referendum—although it is the belief of my colleagues and my own belief, as it is of Government Ministers, that the people of Wales will vote positively in the referendum—certain aspects of devolution contained in the Bill could still go forward with a consensus from all parts of the House of Commons. I have in mind the provision for a Welsh Countryside Commission. There is no reason why that provision could not still be enacted and taken under the wing of the Secretary of State for Wales if the Assembly does not come into existence.
To summarise, I have made three main points. The first concerned the dates and the timing, on which we have had detailed amendments. The second concerned discussion of the expenditure of moneys by Parliament. The third concerned the aspects of devolution which could still go forward if the referendum result were to

be negative. We are unhappy with Clause 82, and we await the response of the Government to the points which have been made.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that with hindsight one could now say that there was a great deal of one-sidedness in the referendum campaign on the Common Market. I question whether hindsight is required in coming to that conclusion. If the hon. Gentleman will look through the records, he will find that a number of right hon. and hon. Members, well before the campaign, pointed to the monstrous one-sidedness which would occur.
It is quite clear that the time at which to raise these points is before a referendum campaign is organised, and the hon. Gentleman has rightly done so in this case. No matter what view we take on the devolution issue and on the sort of outcome that we might desire, there ought to be common ground in all parts of the House of Commons on the need for equity in organising the campaign.
But I wonder whether I carry the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends with me in the further point that I shall now make. If there is to be a fair campaign—that, again, ought to be in the interests of all concerned—we ought to have a decision on the issue. In fact, the issue of devolution ought to be put to the people of Wales and Scotland. That ought to be the campaign. It would, therefore, be completely wrong for the Government to start a campaign on the referendum by saying to the people of Wales "You must vote 'Yes' on devolution in order to express your confidence in the Prime Minister and the Labour Party." That would be completely illegitimate, as well as a travesty, with regard to a campaign on devolution.

Sir Anthony Meyer: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I have intervened very little, and I want to give the Minister time to come in before all the votes take place. I really have no time for interventions. This ought to be as much an agreement between us—a compact, an understanding of honour—before the campaign is organised as the


point made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, which I support.
But, equally important, there is a great deal of concern in many circles outside the House, as well as in Parliament, among people who say that the referendum is a dangerous instrument in a parliamentary democracy. The referendum is an instrument which ought to be treated with great care and caution. I take that view, as do other right hon. and hon. Members. That is all the more reason why we should establish principles regarding the referendum which do not allow for a referendum to become a plebiscite. The history of democracy in other countries is full—

The Chairman: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but Clause 82 deals with commencement rather than with the referendum, which is dealt with in Clause 83. Passing reference was made to Clause 83 by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), but we are dealing with Clause 82.

Mr. Mendelson: Since the "passing reference" of the hon. Gentleman was a fairly outstanding passage into the subject, Mr. Murton, I thought that I might make a passing reference myself, so that at least more than one point of view is on the record. I indicated that I wanted to be brief. That is one reason why I am reluctant to give way. However, it would be churlish not to give the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) a chance.

Sir A. Meyer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The only point I wanted to make is that in any consideration as to whether or not this measure has to come into force, and in any campaign which may take place—I shall not mention the word "referendum"—on whether or not it should come into force, one of the arguments that will be adduced by the Government is that hon. Members, such as the hon. Gentleman himself, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and others, who have spoken courageously against the Bill have not voted against the Bill on any occasion. That fact that they have not so voted will undoubtedly be used by the Government in favour of getting a "Yes" vote.

Mr. Mendelson: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind with

regard to my colleagues. They must speak for themselves. When the hon. Gentleman examines the record, he will find that with regard to myself his statement is factually incorrect.
However, I want to conclude by saying that, whatever issues are put in the campaign, there are three principles upon which we ought to agree now. It ought to go out to the people of Wales and Scotland that we are agreed on them in honour. The first is that there must be a campaign which treats everyone equally. Secondly, there must be equality in the financial resources which any side can apply. Thirdly, we must do nothing that would allow the constitution of this country to develop in the direction of a plebiscite, because that would be dangerous to our parliamentary system beyond the immediate issues involved.

Sir Raymond Gower: On the whole, I agree with the statement by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that there should be some equality in the expenditure. Unfortunately, the provisions of the clause do not permit any such expenditure. I think that the hon. Gentleman wrongly, possibly inadvertently, related subsection (3) to the context of the next clause, which deals with the referendum. Subsection (3) relates to expenditure on the commencement of the Bill.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: The first order under this provision is geared to the referendum itself. For the first order to happen, the referendum must happen. There are aspects of expenditure relating to the first order and the referendum which may overlap, and this may be one of them.

Sir R. Gower: On the other hand, I question the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the weight of financial support will necessarily be opposed to the Bill, as was suggested was the case in Scotland. So far, we have had no campaign in Wales comparable to that to keep Scotland part of the United Kingdom. There has been no campaign on either side, apart from in the House of Commons and amongst politicians. So far, the public in Wales have not been drawn into this controversy.
I hope that the Minister will consider the reasonableness of the request that there should be some expenditure by the Government which is apportioned fairly.


So far, the Government have indicated that this is not their view, but I hope that the Minister will put it to his right hon. and hon. Friends that this proposal could have a lot of support outside the House. It appears to be reasonable and fair, and certainly on one would want the campaign to be distorted unduly, as it might be without such expenditure by the Government. In my view, this is a reasonable proposition.

Mr. Henderson: I am sure that the Committee is extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) for raising some of these issues which might not otherwise have been aired. Hon. Members who were comrades in arms on the EEC referendum but who may take different views of this matter will be wondering whether we have learnt anything from the experience of the EEC referendum, especially in terms of the supply of funds and the capability of both sides to present a fair view to the electorate.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), who at present is engaged in urgent consultation with his Front Bench colleagues—and I am not surprised when I see the state of his Front Bench—referred to the Keep Scotland British campaign, which many of us prefer to call the Keep Scotland Subordinate campaign, which has considerable funds at its disposal in Scotland. I am anxious to hear what comparable campaign there will be in Wales. I have no doubt that there will be one. However, the Government have a responsibility in this. It is for them to decide the allocation of funds, whether in their judgment, the amount of resources may be disproportionate to one side or the other and whether in those circumstances they should not themselves intervene by the provision of funds to both sides to enable a reasonable statement of the case for each side to be made.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Member spell out the sources of funds for the campaign in Scotland? We have a reference in the clause to the availability of funds. It has not been specified so far what expenses are to be defrayed from funds provided by Parliament. What are the sources of the funds in question?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has asked a very important question. There is a famous

poem by Robert Burns describing the passage of the Act of Union in 1707 and which runs:
We were brought and sold for English gold Sic a parcel o rogues in a nation.
I have no doubt at all that the funds that will come flooding in for the Keep Scotland Subordinate or Keep Scotland British campaign will come from south of the border, or, in the case of Wales, from east of the border.
The Government have a definite responsibility—and I hope that the Minister will assure about this—for television and radio time. Will the Government give a directive to the television and radio authorities insisting that equal time be made available for the presentation of both points of view? It would be quite wrong to leave this coverage to the disdiscretion of the broadcasters. This is a matter in which the Government have a definite role to play. They should make a direction.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) really saying that the Government should issue directions in peace time about the content and balance of political programmes in a political campaign?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Member. He is normally an intelligent Member, but in this case he has totally misunderstood what I have said. In any General Election, we expect a fair balance between the different opinions. I am asking the Government to make clear to the broadcasters that we expect the same in this campaign. The Lord President is in the Committee. He should tell us the terms in which the broadcasting authorities are requested to make fair time available to all sides of the argument. Before we pass the Clause, we should have an assurance from the Government that there will be this sort of impartiality in the campaign.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I want to refer to one of the provisions of Clause 82 (1). Passing reference has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to the Welsh Countryside Commission. We have had no time to debate this matter, but I hope that the Government will continue with the plan to establish a countryside commission in Wales, whatever happens to the Bill.
I was in the House when the matter of the Welsh Countryside Commission was debated 10 years ago. At that time countryside commissions were established in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but all that Wales was given—as usual—was an advisory committee. We were told that we could not even look after our own countryside. The Labour Government spokesman had the effrontery to say at the time that we did not have the specialist knowledge to run a countryside commission. That is ridiculous. The persons who are best able to look after the Welsh countryside are the Welsh people. They are very proud of its beauty and want to preserve it.
Even more important are the people who live in the countryside. We are very concerned about the effect of what is happening on the culture of the people who have lived in the countryside for generations, and sometimes centuries. We have a culture which is rich and intellectual, and this is even more worthy of preservation than the countryside.

Sir A. Meyer: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Can you please enlighten me? I do not understand how this bit of filibustering has anything to do with Clause 82.

Mr. Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. The point at issue is that there are amendments relating to the bringing in of a Welsh Countryside Commission irrespective of whether the Assembly is set up.

The Chairman: Order. It is unnecessary for the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to answer the point of order. The Chair is quite capable of doing that. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) is in order.

Mr. Evans: I had assumed that this was one of the provisions referred to in the first subsection of the clause.
Even more important than the beauty of our countryside is the character of the culture of the people who inhabit it. Any planning of the countryside in Wales should be done by the people of Wales, inside Wales, with a view to preserving our culture. The preservation of the culture requires more than looking after the beauty of the land. It requires work, and we find that very few light industries are allowed inside the national parks,

which cover nearly one-quarter of the area of Wales. There is a great need for more of this sort of light industrial development inside the national parks.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make some reference to the coming into force of the Act. He has not yet done so.

Mr. Evans: We look forward to the countryside commission coming into force soon. It will certainly come into force when the Bill is implemented and the referendum is carried in Wales, but if that is lost we shall lose the commission as well.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Some hon. Members, including myself, cannot hear the hon. Gentleman because of the rude behaviour of other hon. Members who are not interested in the debate.

The Chairman: That is a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Evans: The committee responsible for running the Welsh countryside has alienated the sympathy of farmers and many workpeople on the land. Much national opinion is against the committee and there is a strong conviction that the only people who can run the countryside of Wales properly are the Welsh people. Indeed, there is a strong convition that the only people who can run Wales properly are the Welsh people. We look forward to a full Government with full freedom.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants a full Government with full freedom. Will he now say—contrary to anything else he has said on the Bill—that he is in favour of independence for Wales?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman can use whatever words he likes. We use the words "national freedom". We want full national freedom.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Before the guillotine falls, will the hon. Gentleman explain what benefit his party hopes to gain by preventing debate on the threshold amendment by this filibuster which has lasted for most of the evening?

Mr. Evans: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman and so many of his hon. Friends voted for the guillotine. We are operating under it, and many matters cannot be discussed. We must take every chance we can to debate important matters.
The farmers of Wales agree that the future of the Welsh countryside is very important, and they are angry when they find their walls, gates and fences broken down under the present administration.
I hope that we shall have fuller freedom in the near future to ensure that the people of Wales will be put in charge of their own land, territory, lives, culture and economy. The whole life of the people of Wales should be in the

control of the people of Wales. That is the future that we look forward to. The small matter of the Welsh countryside is not so small if it is an indication of the direction in which we want to move. We want to look after the land of Wales and look after the Welsh nation. We want to ensure a national future for this nation.

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 232, Noes 259.

Division No. 184]
AYES
[11.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, James A.
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Edge, Geoff
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lambie, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bates, Alf
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Litterick, Tom


Bean, R. E.
Evans, John (Newton)
Loyden, Eddie


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Luard, Evan


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh


Boardman, H.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Forrester, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maclennan, Robert


Buchanan, Richard
George, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gilbert, Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ginsburg, David
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Golding, John
Magee, Bryan


Campbell, Ian
Gould, Bryan
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cant, R. B.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grocott, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cohen, Stanley
Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian


Coleman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Molloy, William


Corbett, Robin
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moonman, Eric


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cronin, John
Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moyle, Roland


Cryer, Bob
Huckfield, Les
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
O'Halloran, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ovenden, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Park, George


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Parry, Robert




Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Snape, Peter
Ward, Michael


Price, William (Rugby)
Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David


Radice, Giles
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkinson, John


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stallard, A. W.
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stoddart, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger
White, James (Pollok)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Strang, Gavin
Whitlock, William


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rooker, J. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ryman, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sever, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)
Woodall, Alec


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tierney, Sydney
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tinn, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tomlinson, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Torney, Tom



Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
James, David


Alison, Michael
Elliott, Sir William
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Arnold, Tom
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Eyre, Reginald
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jopling, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Fairgrieve, Russell
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Farr, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Baker, Kenneth
Fell, Anthony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Banks, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bell, Ronald
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Biffen, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawson, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Freud, Clement
Le Marchant, Spencer


Body, Richard
Fry, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Loveridge, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Luce, Richard


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Glyn, Dr Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Braine, Sir Bernard
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McCrindle, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip
McCusker, H.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Goodhew, Victor
Macfarlane, Neil


Brooke, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, John


Brotherton, Michael
Gorst, John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Eldon
Marten, Neil


Bulmer, Esmond
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mates, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol


Carlisle, Mark
Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick


Churchill, W. S.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Clegg, Walter
Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miscampbell, Norman



Cockroft, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Cope, John
Hawkins, Paul
Molyneaux, James


Cormack, Patrick
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Costain, A. P.
Henderson, Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus


Crawford, Douglas
Heseltine, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Critchley, Julian
Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Crouch, David
Hodgson, Robin
Morgan, Geraint


Crowder, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mudd, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey


Drayson, Burnaby
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Nelson, Anthony


Dunlop, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael


Durant, Tony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Newton, Tony


Dykes, Hugh
Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John







Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tebbit, Norman


Page, John (Harrow West)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Royle, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Page, Richard (Workington)
Sainsbury, Tim
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pardoe, John
Scott, Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Parkinson, Cecil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thompson, George


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Penhaligon, David
Shepherd, Colin
Townsend, Cyril D.


Percival, Ian
Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Sims, Roger
Wakeham, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Walters, Dennis


Prior, Rt Hon James
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Watt, Hamish


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Raison, Timothy
Spence, John
Wells, John


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Welsh, Andrew


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Sproat, Iain
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stainton, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry



Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wigley, Dafydd


Rhodes James, R.
Stanley, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Ridsdale, Julian
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Younger, Hon George


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Gordon Wilson.


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Question accordingly negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Clause 83

REFERENDUM

Mr. John Smith: For the reasons that I outlined in my earlier intervention, I beg to move Amendment No. 325, in page 32, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons enti-

tled to vote in the referendum have voted "Yes" in reply to the question posed in the Appendix to Schedule 12 to this Act or that a majority of the answers given in the referendum have been "No" he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act".

Mr. Crawford: On a point of order, Sir Myer—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I cannot take a point of order at this stage.

Question put, That the amendment he made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 208.

Division No. 185]
AYES
[11.18 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Costain, A. P.


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cowans, Harry


Alison, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brittan, Leon
Crawshaw, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brooke, Peter
Crouch, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Brotherton, Michael
Crowder, F. P.


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Awdry, Daniel
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Baker, Kenneth
Buck, Antony
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Bean, R. E.
Bulmer, Esmond
Doig, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, Burnaby


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Dunlop, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Channon, Paul
Durant, Tony


Benyon, W.
Churchill, W. S.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clegg, Walter
Elliott, Sir William


Biffen, John
Cockroft, John
Emery, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Body, Richard
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Evans, John (Newton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Eyre, Reginald


Bottomley, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Fairbairn, Nicholas




Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Fall, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rhodes James, R.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Litterick, Tom
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loveridge, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm


Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCusker, H.
Robinson, Geoffrey


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John
Rooker, J. W.


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Royle, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Madden, Max
Sainsbury, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Goodhart, Philip
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Sinclair, Sir George


Gray, Hamish
Mendelson, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Eldon
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Spearing, Nigel


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Molloy, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, James
Sproat, Iain


Hannam, John
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Haselhurst, Alan
Moonman, Eric
Stanley, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint
Stoddart, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stokes, John


Heseltine, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hodgson, Robin
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Holland, Philip
Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Newton, Tony
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nott, John
Torney, Tom


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ogden, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hurd, Douglas
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Viggers, Peter


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wakeham, John


James, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wall, Patrick


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Parkinson, Cecil
Weatherill, Bernard


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, John


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Winterton, Nicholas


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woodall, Alec


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Kinnock, Neil
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Younger, Hon George


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rathbone, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. John Stradling and


Lawrence, Ivan

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bonn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Allaun, Frank
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Campbell, Ian


Anderson, Donald
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boardman, H.
Cant, R. B.


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Carmichael, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Clemitson, Ivor


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchanan, Richard
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Corbett, Robin


Bates, Alf
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)







Crawford, Douglas
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sever, John


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Deakins, Eric
Knox, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lambie, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dempsey, James
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Snape, Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loyden, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ennals, Rt Hon David
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacKenzie. Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thompson, George


Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)


Foot, Rt Won Michael
Magee, Bryan
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tierney, Sydney


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Golding, John
Mitchell, Austin
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ward, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkinson, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mcyle, Roland
Watt, Hamish


Grocott, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noble, Mike
Wellbeloved, James


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon
Welsh, Andrew


Harper, Joseph
O'Halloran, Michael
White, James (Pollok)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitlock, William


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Padley, Walter
Wigley, Dafydd


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pardoe, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Henderson, Douglas
Park, George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hooley, Frank
Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hooson, Emlyn
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Horam, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Radice, Giles
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Reid, George
Woof, Robert


Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)



Hunter, Adam
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Janner, Greville
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Frank R. White.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ryman, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 269. Noes 30.

Division No. 186]
AYES
[11.34 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cant, R. B.


Allaun, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carlisle, Mark


Anderson, Donald
Boardman, H.
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Body, Richard
Clemitson, Ivor


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Ashton, Joe
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cohen, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald



Atkinson, Norman
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Banks, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Corbett, Robin


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cowans, Harry


Bates, Alf
Buchanan, Richard
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bell, Ronald
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cronin, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian
Cryer, Bob




Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rooker, J. W.



Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rowlands, Ted


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryman, John


Doig, Peter
Litterick, Tom
Scott, Nicholas


Dormand, J. D.
Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luard, Evan
Sever, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Elliott, Sir William
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sims, Roger


Ennals, Rt Hon David
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skeet, T. H. H.


Evans, John (Newton)
Mackintosh, John P.
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)



Farr, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Faulds, Andrew
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Snape, Peter


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stoddart, David


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stott, Roger


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Golding, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mikardo, Ian
Tierney, Sydney


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tomlinson, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, Austin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molloy, William
Wakeham, John


Grocott, Bruce
Monro, Hector
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Geraint
Wall, Patrick


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walters, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ward, Michael


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Watkinson, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Hooley, Frank
Nelson, Anthony
White, James (Pollok)


Horam, John
Newens, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Noble, Mike
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Palmer, Arthur
Winterton, Nicholas


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Park, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pattie, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Penhaligon, David
Wrigglesworth, tan


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, William (Rugby)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Judd, Frank
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. Frank R. White and


Kaufman, Gerald
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Ted Graham.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Beith, A. J.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Knox, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Freud, Clement
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Budgen, Nick
Henderson, Douglas
Pardoe, John


Canavan, Dennis
Higgins, Terence L.
Rathbone, Tim


Crawford, Douglas
Hooson, Emlyn
Reid, George







Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thompson, George



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Steel, Rt Hon David
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12

REFERENDUM

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 84, line 33, leave out from 'each' to end of line 34, and insert:
'county in Wales shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officer for the county; and if the council or the counting officer for a county so requests, the council of any district in the county shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officer for the county.'.

No. 107, in page 85, leave out lines 8 to 13 and insert:
'Parliament has decided to consult the electorate in Wales on the question whether the Wales Act 1978 should be put into effect.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have power to adjourn from place to place:
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of this Parliament.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put

forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ABORTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

11.51 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this subject on the Adjournment, because next week sees the tenth anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act 1967 which made abortion legal in Britain.
Too much is heard in this House and outside of alleged scandals, abuses and harmful effects, and far too little, because on the whole it is not the stuff of headlines, of the enormous sense of well-being and relief that the 1967 Act, by its very existence, has brought to many women and their families. So now is a good time to ask whether we have the administration right. Of course, it will never be right for those who believe that all abortion is wrong, but most of us know—and I hope that my hon Friend the Minister of State will bring up to date those who do not—the measures which have been taken to control the working of the Act.
There is only one major scandal and failure of the Act, namely, the failure of the National Health Service to provide the necessary facilities for equitable treatment throughout the country, and it is a failure that needs a remedy. But it is never mentioned by those who shout most loudly about "cleaning up abuse".
Next week, those basically opposed to legal abortions and thus opposed to the concept of freedom of moral choice for individuals within a pluralistic society will be carrying wreaths from town to town, having wreaths delivered to hon. Members here, and generally attempting to continue their campaign of spreading lies, distortions and despondency, which have been their stock in trade ever since


they realised that the majority of citizens did not accept their view that abortion was the same as murder from the moment of conception.
This campaign ignores the fact that more than 1¼ million safe abortions have taken place in Britain since 1967 and that almost every country in Western Europe has now followed and in many cases gone further in liberalising and humanising its laws. Only last week in Roman Catholic Italy the Chamber of Deputies passed a Bill to allow abortion on request to any woman over 18 and less than 12 weeks pregnant—something done several years earlier by France and Austria.
Next week in Britain, not only will there be emotive stories spread around, but a new political initiative will be launched called "Value your Vote", based on what has now been shown to be the completely erroneous assumption that abortion can be a major issue in election campaigns. Fortunately, the electors at Garscadden have proved the contrary to be true. So this Government or any other need no longer have any fear about introducing bold and robust measures to implement the Abortion Act and make National Health Service day-care abortions the rule rather than the exception.
In Garscadden we saw the most highly organised, spare-no-expense campaign that the anti-abortionists could organise. We had a campaign where a pressure group acted like a political party. It ran public meetings attended by the candidates, distributed leaflets to every house, had leaflet drops outside churches, plastered the constituency with emotive posters, cruised with loudspeaker vans and even provided cars to take its supporters to the polls.
It was a campaign in which the leading Roman Catholic lay organisation recommended the faithful to vote against any pro-abortion candidate and declared that
the sanctity of life transcends normal political considerations.
It was a campaign in which the candidate's views on abortion were canvassed and continually publicised, a campaign in which a Church of Scotland clergyman felt impelled in his parish magazine to request his flock not to be "party political meddlers"—whatever that means—and to remind them that

Roman Catholic priests in another part of this constituency have advised their folk to vote SNP since it is the only party with an anti-abortion policy".
It was a campaign in which Roman Catholic priests knocked on doors of houses of parishioners showing Labour Party posters and ordered them to take them down; and one in which the journal of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow sought the views of all candidates only on abortion.
But, despite all these massive attempts in an area with a 35 per cent. Roman Catholic population, the declared antiabortion candidates did not win, and a television programme survey of voters leaving the polling station found only 3 per cent of Roman Catholics to agree that abortion was the most important issue. It also found that 62 per cent. of them voted for the candidate who as a Member of Parliament in 1967 had voted for the Bill.
The lesson from this must be clear to all Members who have had intimidating threats made to them about future votes going against supporters of a liberal abortion law. We know that it is a hollow threat for, if it had any substance, it would have been fulfilled at Garscadden. If it failed at Garscadden, it must fail elsewhere.
As it must be clear that there are no votes to be lost on this issue, I hope that the Minister will propose immediate plans for day-care centres run by sympathetic staff in every region, regardless of the personal prejudices of senior members of the local gynaecological establishment.
These centres would save not only health and happiness by ensuring that pregnancies were terminated early but money and would release overnight hospital beds for those on gynaecological waiting lists. The money saved could be used for family planning—prevention is better than cure—through contraception and sterilisation programmes. This in the long run would reduce the numbers of abortions.
Perhaps my hon. Friend could confirm my view that if some of the extra money made available for day-care units in the Budget last week were used to increase the provision of early outpatient abortion, there would in a short time be an overall saving of money and further reduction in the already much reduced maternal


mortality and morbidity associated more with late than with early abortion.
We have already seen a welcome move in my part of the country. Faced with an intransigent professor and gynaecological establishment who have ensured that only some 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of West Midlands women have succeeded in getting NHS abortions the regional health authority, under pressure from the community health councils, set up a working party to consider what could be done. That working party has now produced a report with recommendations to improve the situation and to open daycare facilities.
Typically, it has been publicly attacked by Professor Scarisbrick of the anti-all-abortion "Life" organisation. In a letter to the chairman of the RHA, released to and widely reported by the local and national Press, he accuses the working party of
a serious and astonishing error
in stating that the NHS has a statutory responsibility to provide an abortion service.
In fact, it is the professor who is guilty of the "serious error", because his letter suggests that the working party believed this duty on the NHS sprang from the Abortion Act 1967. But nowhere in the report is this said, and clearly the duty—as detailed by the authoritative Lane Report—springs from the National Health Service Act 1946, which puts a duty on the Secretary of State, among other things, to
promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales …
Precisely the same aims as those of the Abortion Act. Perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on this. The false premises about the 1967 Act have been enshrined in the recent series of Bills before the House which in turn were based on the report of the Select Committee of anti-abortionists.
In fact, in all those areas—except two—where concern was expressed and changes recommended, changes and controls have been introduced. The DHSS now has complete control of the private sector, and let us hope it can now devote its energies to improving the public sector.

Those two areas, where little has been done, are the areas where those with detailed knowledge and objective minds know that there is no real evidence to show that change is necessary. These are reduction of the upper time limit and restrictions on the charitable services. The pressure for reduction of the upper time limit comes from repeatedly making emotive claims about live babies being killed—claims which, when exhaustively investigated, are shown to have no basis in truth.
From the evidence it appears that there was only ever one case where a child might have lived—the Stobhill case in Glasgow in 1970. Tragic and upsetting though it was, one such case in 1¼ million legal abortions cannot justify restricting the law. That there has been only one such case is shown by the fact that it is still quoted today by the anti-abortionists. If they knew of others, they would certainly not rely on evidence that is eight years out of date.
This lack of evidence has not stopped those opposed to legal abortion making unsubstantiated and extravagant claims that have understandably worried the public conscience, have been eagerly leapt upon and spread around by a Press that is hungry for sensationalism and fuelled by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who started this hare running in May 1970 with the rumour headlined in the Daily Express as
Abortion trade in unborn babies
From a whole series of unsavoury accusations I come to one of the most recent which on 8th February this year was shown in a reply to me to have no foundation in fact. On that occasion, a Mrs. Chester of Droylsden complained in a letter published in her local newspaper that a Tameside hospital had posted a notice instructing staff not to resuscitate live babies born following a certain method of abortion. Clearly, if this had been true, NHS staff would have been guilty of inciting others to break the law, so investigations were made. It was noticeable that neither Mrs. Chester nor the newspaper that printed her letter was able or willing to give the source of the information or the name of the hospital. So both DHSS time and that of the Tame-side area health authority was wasted on following up this apparently baseless accusation.
These unfounded and untrue accusations have led to a general belief that live babies are being aborted. They waste much time of the Department and AHAs in trying to follow them through—time that could have been much better spent in implementing, through the NHS, the Abortion Act in those parts of the country where abortion is not yet available.
Currently, if the "Life" newsletter is to be believed—and perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us what he knows of this—the most recent "horror" accusation is with the DPP. This story, featured again in the national Press with vast amounts of space and told to it by the "Life" organisation, concerned a child delivered by Caesarean section at Barking Hospital when, in the 29th week of pregnancy, the mother's life was in dander. According to "Life", the foetus was 25 to 26 weeks old and was thrown aside as dead and rescued only by accident while on its way to the incinerator—shades of the Stobhill story? But, according to the paediatrician concerned, the baby was in the intensive care unit within seven weeks of delivery and was thriving some weeks later when "Life" told its horror story to the Press. At the time, "Life" said that its sources were absolutely authoritative. Now its newsletter admits:
We have no eye-witnesses unfortunately.
It is a scandal that this sort of unauthorised and unfounded allegation can be picked up by the Press so avidly.
However, the really interesting thing about that story is that the child was born on 17th December and the story was not released in the Press until 21st January—in the same week that the authors of the book "Babies for Burning" were forced to make their humiliating High Court retraction and apology to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.
Which brings us to the only other area of concern of the Select Committee whose recommendations for restrictive measures have not been implemented separation of the counselling and other functions of the charities.
It is noticeable that nobody questioned the good faith, the professional integrity or the great need for bodies such as BPAS until that disgusting little book was touted around. Could it have been that, because the charities were making the Abortion Act 1967 work as Parliament intended

and driving the exploiters out of business by providing a competitive, non-profit service, they had to be discredited by the anti-abortionists who saw their supply of sensational stories disappearing and thus their hopes of appealing to the electorate?
Certainly the attacks on the charities intensified from that time, and most of them are as baseless as that book would have been shown to be had the authors not recognised that it was better to apologise quickly than to allow all the evidence of their lying, deception and duplicity to come out into the open during a trial. For not only did the authors lie in the book, they lied before a Select Committee of the House. That is my main reason for seeking this Adjournment debate.
Both Mr. Litchfield and "Mrs. Litchfield", otherwise Kentish, as she is called on the birth certificate of her and Litchfield's child, a certificate which during the course of a BBC interview Litchfield described as a
fraud being investigated by Scotland Yard
but which so far has never been challenged, told the Select Committee that the transcripts with which the Committee was supplied were a full, true and accurate record of the relevant tape recordings. Had the Select Committee listened to those recordings and compared them with the transcripts supplied by the authors, it would have found that they were neither full nor accurate, nor complete.
It is not surprising that the Select Committee did not make that comparison, for it took some 300 hours to do just that in preparation for the BPAS trial. Of 65 relevant conversations found on the tapes, transcripts of only 32 were given to the Committee. Among those supplied more than half differed materially from the tapes. The BPAS schedule of important differences between the tapes—that is, those that materially altered the meaning or the context of the transcripts as supplied by the authors—amounted to no fewer than 71 typed pages.
For example—this was a thread that ran throughout the deception—Mrs. Litchfield-Kentish told the Select Committee that she was not asked about her menstrual cycle on any occasion. However, in every interview recorded on the tape recordings there is lengthy and


detailed investigation of her menstrual history.
In one particular interview with a Mr. Pond, whom they visited before she saw her own doctor to confirm that she was not pregnant, despite the book stating that she was confirmed as not pregnant before their investigation started, the true transcript shows six pages of conversation about her pill-taking habits and menstrual pattern, with Mr. Pond, exasperated, saying
You're most unlikely to be pregnant".
Before the book was published the News of the World featured that visit to Mr. Pond in its series of articles that later became the book. It not only erroneously stated that
first she visited her own doctor
but had Mr. Pond saying "You are 16 weeks", whereas the tape clearly has Mr. Pond saying
You are 16 weeks on from your last period.
That is something that Kentish herself had told him, and which could have been true as it was quite clear from the long private conversation between the authors, which is still on the tape although they did not realise that the tape was working at the time. That conversation took place while Mr. Pond was out of the room doing the urine test. At that stage they both thought that she really was pregnant and was genuinely seeking an abortion. They were arguing about the cost while Mr. Pond was outside the room.
There distorting their own situation, distorting the truth and destroying with a a tissue of lies the reputations of honest charities, doctors and others are the so-called journalists whom the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) described as "virginal and pristine", and who the broadsheet of the Festival of Light says it has
consistently backed in bringing their book to the attention of the Christian public",
going on to remark
Its almost unbelievable stories of the abortion racket show the dearth of moral fibre in Britain today.
Indeed they do, but not quite in the way that the Festival of Light intended.
There are 71 pages of lies, omissions and variations. It is to be hoped that soon, despite the apology being given

before the evidence was out in court, it will be available for all. The DPP has requested the police to have the full tapes transcribed. I hope that they are, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to enlighten the House on this point, for Sessional Standing Orders tell us that
the House will proceed with the utmost severity against any person who hath given false evidence before this House or any Committee thereof.
That should interest my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
So far this pair have got off scot-free. They have deluded the public and deluded a Select Committee into producing a report that has resulted in two Bills coming before the House, each of which has attacked and sought to destroy the work that the two major abortion charities undertake to make good the lack of NHS provision.
I hope that my hon. Friend, 10 years after the enlightened legislation that the House enacted with the liars publicly exposed and the electorate's views on the anti-abortion lobby made clear at Garscadden, will be able to get on with the task and that the House will provide the resources for him to do so.

12.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I shall try to deal with the questions affecting my responsibilities as one of the Ministers responsible for the administration of the Abortion Act. First, however, I must remind the House that the Government take no collective view on the moral questions of abortion in the belief that individual Members should make their own judgments on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) invited me to remind the House of the measures taken by my Department to control the private sector of abortion and to comment on whether I agreed that these measures are effective. It might help if I indicate to the House the range of undertakings which private nursing home proprietors must give my right hon. Friend as a condition of his approval under the Abortion Act.
Briefly, they provide for the maintenance of detailed records, the inspection of premises and records by the Department's officers at any time without notice, the


giving of receipts to patients and the retention of copies for inspection, the acceptance of fees only after two doctors have certified that the Act's criteria are met in each case, the number of patients per 24 hours not to exceed the number of beds approved, and for the examination of patients by a doctor before discharge.
The nursing home must also undertake not to advertise abroad, either directly or indirectly, employ touts, or to accept patients who have been diverted from their intended destinations or touted for. The proprietors must have no connection with agencies or persons known to advertise abroad, or to tout for or divert patients.
Proprietors must also, in applying for approval, provide the Department with detailed information about the business arrangements of the companies and individuals involved in the application, all of which is carefully inquired into by the Department's investigators. Medical and nursing arrangements, including staffing, equipment, procedures and accommodation, are checked by the Department's medical and nursing teams.
Nursing homes which concentrate on abortions have had to satisfy my right hon. Friend that the total costs charged to abortion patients treated on their premises are not unreasonable, and must not increase these costs without prior approval. All financial arrangements between nursing homes and doctors, other than payment of fees, and pregnancy advice bureaux must be reported to the Department.
I think that it will also be worth while on this occasion, having dealt with nursing homes, to focus on the arrangements for registration of approved advice bureaux, as this register was established only early last year.
The background to the register is that, under the Abortion Act 1967, only places which carry out termination of pregnancy are required to be approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State. This means that nursing homes that carry out abortions, in addition to being registered with the local health authority, also have to satisfy the Secretary of State that they should be approved for carrying out abortion, whereas the bureaux which advise and refer women for abortion neither require approval under the 1967

Act nor need to be registered with the local health authority.
In the early years, following the implementation of the Act, and in the absence of control of any kind, a large number of small referral agencies mushroomed, mainly in London. It was these agencies that saw some of the most blatant abuses of the Abortion Act and caused public concern—such practices as touting for patients, employing persons to divert patients from their intended destinations, and canvassing abroad for patients. This led the Lane Committee to recommend that, whilst the existing control over nursing homes appeared to work very satisfactorily, there ought to be a system of licensing pregnancy advice bureaux.
Even while the Committee was sitting, my Department had adopted a system of blacklisting undesirable agencies. Approved nursing homes were warned that if they accepted referrals from such agencies they would risk losing the Secretary of State's approval. As a result of the blacklisting of 23 agencies, these abuses were eliminated and most of the people concerned put out of business. In 1975 the then Secretary of State accepted a recommendation by the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, based on the conclusions of the Lane Committee, that this form of control should be extended by requiring approved nursing homes to give an assurance that they would accept only patients referred from pregnancy advice bureaux who were on a register approved by the Secretary of State. The first register was published on 10th February 1977 and there are now 35 registered bureaux; nine applications have been refused. Registration will be reviewed and, as appropriate, renewed on 1st October this year.
Before registration, each bureau is inspected to ensure that the accommodation and facilities for counselling and medical assessment on the premises are of reasonable standard; counsellors are interviewed and counselling notes inspected to assess, as far as it is possible to do so, the standard of counselling to be provided to clients and the business arrangements inquired into to ensure that undesirable persons are not involved and that all is above board.
In addition, registered bureaux must subscribe to various requirements governing their conduct. Amongst other things, these prohibit advertising abroad and


association with touts and require the maintenance of proper records, the giving of receipts, and consultation with my Department about the methods of advertising in this country. All registered bureaux have received a copy of my Department's counselling circular, and they are expected to provide counselling in accordance with its central requirement that women should make up their minds in the light of all the relevant facts about their situation and about the alternatives to abortion which are open to them. The register appears to be working well.
As with approved nursing homes, all registered bureaux are subject to unannounced visits by my Department's inspecting officers. One of these officers is always a doctor, authorised to inspect counselling notes and medical records and to discuss counselling and medical procedures at the bureaux with the counsellors and doctors concerned. The other member of the team, an administrative officer, checks facilities, staffing and accommodation and general records and receipts. A full report is made on every unannounced visit.
Bureaux may also be visited by the Department's special investigators, who are ex-police officers, either at random or as part of wider inquiries, and the opportunity is taken to check records—other than patient records—staffing and procedures at the premises. So far it has not been necessary to remove any bureau from the register for failing to comply with the requirements of registration. My right hon. Friend, however, will not hesitate to do this, if necessary; nor will he hesitate to take firm measures against any approved nursing home which he finds has acted contrary to assurances given to him. I am of the opinion that the present system of administrative control, including as it does now the registration of pregnancy advice bureaux, is effective in preventing abuse and flexible enough to react quickly to any change in circumstances.
The second main issue which has been raised with me concerns the effects of the 1967 Act over the first 10 years of its operation and, in particular, the extent to which the NHS has provided facilities for abortion. The statistics published

regularly by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the number of abortions performed under the Act increased steadily up to 1973 when there were 167,149 abortions performed in England and Wales of which 110,563 were performed on women resident in England and Wales. The number of abortions notified in 1977 was 132,999 of which 102,237 were notified as being performed on resident women. The rate of abortions per 1,000 women aged Is to 45 years also increased up to 1974, but decreased after that, and appears to be significantly lower than the rate in countries with similar legislation.
It is difficult to establish what the long term pattern will be, but, for those of us who lay emphasis on prevention, there are encouraging signs that the free family planning services are helping to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. A survey of family planning use between 1970 and 1975 published yesterday demonstrates the growing use of more effective birth control methods particularly amongst those groups which previously seemed least inclined to use the family planning services. The most recent figures on births and abortions show that the rate of extramarital conception, measured approximately by adding figures of illegitimacy, pre-nuptial conception and legal abortion amongst the young, is decreasing. For example, the rate of extramarital conceptions per 1,000 women in the age group 16 to 19 fell from 60·4 per 1,000 women in 1972 to 45·8 per 1,000 women in 1976—a fall of 24 per cent. A similar decline occurred in the 20 to 24 year age group. Even in the under-16 age group, where the numbers are small but of considerable concern to us, the figures, which showed a rise up to two per 1,000 in 1973, remained steady thereafter.
On the question of NHS abortion facilities, I fully accept that provision varies considerably among different parts of England, and overall the NHS performs only just over half of all abortions on women resident in England and Wales. But we are determined to improve NHS facilities. The letter of guidance which went out with the £50 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget Statement last week in fact states that some of the money could be spent on day-care termination facilities.
As a result of recent activities, I am happy to say that my Department has had discussions with two regions about improving abortion facilities—namely, Wessex and the West Midlands. I have noted that the West Midlands Regional Health Authority has accepted its working party's report on abortion facilities in that region, which proposed the provision of day-care facilities for abortion supported by arrangements for counselling. I am sure that my hon. Friend will regard that as a considerable advance.
On the question of the Barking case, I understand that papers relating to the incident at Barking Hospital were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who considered them and con-

cluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Droylesden case. Mrs. Chester, the lady who made the accusation, refused to be interviewed or to give any further information about the allegation, other than what she had been told about the notice by a staff nurse. The editor—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.